Natalia Arias1, Eduardo Garralda1,2, Liliana De Lima3, John Y Rhee4, Carlos Centeno1,2. 1. 1 ATLANTES Research Program, Institute for Culture and Society, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. 2. 2 IdiSNA (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra/Institute of Health Research of Navarra), Pamplona, Spain. 3. 3 International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care, Houston, Texas. 4. 4 Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Abstract
Background: Indicators assessing national-level palliative care (PC) development used for cross-national comparison depict progress on this field. There is current interest on its inclusion in global monitoring frameworks. Objective: Identify and conceptualize those most frequently used for international PC development reporting. Design: Systematic review. Data Sources: PubMed, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Google targeting national-level development indicators used for cross-national comparison. Additional search requesting experts' suggestions on key studies and "snow-balling" on reference section of all included studies. Identified indicators were listed and categorized in dimensions: services, use of medicines, policy, and education. Results: Fifty-four studies were included. Development has been evaluated using 480 different formulations of 165 indicators, 38 were highly reported. Thirty-two fell into proposed dimensions, 11 for use of medicines, 9 for policy, 7 for services, and 5 for education. Six into complementary dimensions: research, professional activity, and international cooperation. Six were the most frequently used indicators: number of PC services per population (40 reports), existence of PC national plan, strategy, or program (25), existence of palliative medicine specialization (22), availability and allocation of funds for PC (13), medical schools, including PC, in undergraduate curricula (13), and total use of opioids-morphine equivalents (11). Conclusion: There is a clear pattern for national-level PC development evaluation repeatedly using a small number of indicators. Indicators addressing generalistic provision, integration into health systems, and specific fields such as pediatric lack. This study invites international discussion on a global consensus on PC-development assessment.
Background: Indicators assessing national-level palliative care (PC) development used for cross-national comparison depict progress on this field. There is current interest on its inclusion in global monitoring frameworks. Objective: Identify and conceptualize those most frequently used for international PC development reporting. Design: Systematic review. Data Sources: PubMed, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Google targeting national-level development indicators used for cross-national comparison. Additional search requesting experts' suggestions on key studies and "snow-balling" on reference section of all included studies. Identified indicators were listed and categorized in dimensions: services, use of medicines, policy, and education. Results: Fifty-four studies were included. Development has been evaluated using 480 different formulations of 165 indicators, 38 were highly reported. Thirty-two fell into proposed dimensions, 11 for use of medicines, 9 for policy, 7 for services, and 5 for education. Six into complementary dimensions: research, professional activity, and international cooperation. Six were the most frequently used indicators: number of PC services per population (40 reports), existence of PC national plan, strategy, or program (25), existence of palliative medicine specialization (22), availability and allocation of funds for PC (13), medical schools, including PC, in undergraduate curricula (13), and total use of opioids-morphine equivalents (11). Conclusion: There is a clear pattern for national-level PC development evaluation repeatedly using a small number of indicators. Indicators addressing generalistic provision, integration into health systems, and specific fields such as pediatric lack. This study invites international discussion on a global consensus on PC-development assessment.
Entities:
Keywords:
assessment; comparison; cross-national; development; global; macro indicators; national level; palliative care
Authors: William E Rosa; Amisha Parekh de Campos; Nauzley C Abedini; Tamryn F Gray; Huda Abu-Saad Huijer; Afsan Bhadelia; Juli McGowan Boit; Samuel Byiringiro; Nigel Crisp; Constance Dahlin; Patricia M Davidson; Sheila Davis; Liliana De Lima; Paul E Farmer; Betty R Ferrell; Vedaste Hategekimana; Viola Karanja; Felicia Marie Knaul; Julius D N Kpoeh; Joseph Lusaka; Samuel T Matula; Cory McMahon; Salimah H Meghani; Patricia J Moreland; Christian Ntizimira; Lukas Radbruch; M R Rajagopal; Julia Downing Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Samy A Alsirafy; Amneh D Hassan; Mahmoud Y Sroor; Ismail Samy; Somaia M A Mousa Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 3.113
Authors: Natalia Arias-Casais; Jesús López-Fidalgo; Eduardo Garralda; Juan José Pons; John Y Rhee; Radbruch Lukas; Liliana de Lima; Carlos Centeno Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Piret Paal; Cornelia Brandstötter; Johannes Bükki; Frank Elsner; Anna Ersteniuk; Elisabeth Jentschke; Andreas Stähli; Iryna Slugotska Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Natalia Arias-Casais; Eduardo Garralda; Miguel Antonio Sánchez-Cárdenas; John Y Rhee; Carlos Centeno Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 3.234