Mia Jess1, Helle Timm1, Karin B Dieperink1,2. 1. 1 REHPA, The Danish Knowledge Centre for Rehabilitation and Palliative Care, Odense University Hospital and University of Southern Denmark, Nyborg, Denmark. 2. 2 Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is extensive need for palliative care worldwide, but access to care remains inadequate, especially for non-cancer patients. Video consultations are a promising tool in the provision of home-based palliative care, but an overview of evidence solely on video consultations in palliative care is lacking. AIM: To review and synthesize current evidence regarding the use of video consultations in general and specialized palliative care to various patient groups. DESIGN: A systematic integrative review with a narrative synthesis was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA (2009) guidelines. PROSPERO #: CRD42018095383. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO were searched for primary research articles published between 2005 and 2018. In addition, reference lists of included articles were hand searched. RESULTS: The search resulted in 813 articles; 39 articles were included in the review, consisting of mixed methods (n = 14), qualitative (n = 10), quantitative (n = 10), and case studies (n = 5). The studies mainly focused on specialized palliative care to adult patients with cancer in high income countries. Through data analysis, six themes addressing advantages/disadvantages and facilitators/barriers were identified: (1) Redesign of care, (2) Communication, (3) User perceptions, (4) Technology, (5) Privacy issues, and (6) Economic implications. CONCLUSION: Using video technology in palliative care has both advantages and disadvantages. However, evidence beyond the focus on specialized palliative care and patients with cancer is limited. Future research should focus on how and when video consultations might replace in-person specialized palliative care and video consultations in general palliative care, in low and middle income countries; and involve patients with a non-cancer diagnosis.
BACKGROUND: There is extensive need for palliative care worldwide, but access to care remains inadequate, especially for non-cancerpatients. Video consultations are a promising tool in the provision of home-based palliative care, but an overview of evidence solely on video consultations in palliative care is lacking. AIM: To review and synthesize current evidence regarding the use of video consultations in general and specialized palliative care to various patient groups. DESIGN: A systematic integrative review with a narrative synthesis was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA (2009) guidelines. PROSPERO #: CRD42018095383. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO were searched for primary research articles published between 2005 and 2018. In addition, reference lists of included articles were hand searched. RESULTS: The search resulted in 813 articles; 39 articles were included in the review, consisting of mixed methods (n = 14), qualitative (n = 10), quantitative (n = 10), and case studies (n = 5). The studies mainly focused on specialized palliative care to adult patients with cancer in high income countries. Through data analysis, six themes addressing advantages/disadvantages and facilitators/barriers were identified: (1) Redesign of care, (2) Communication, (3) User perceptions, (4) Technology, (5) Privacy issues, and (6) Economic implications. CONCLUSION: Using video technology in palliative care has both advantages and disadvantages. However, evidence beyond the focus on specialized palliative care and patients with cancer is limited. Future research should focus on how and when video consultations might replace in-person specialized palliative care and video consultations in general palliative care, in low and middle income countries; and involve patients with a non-cancer diagnosis.
Authors: Isaac S Chua; Finly Zachariah; William Dale; Josephine Feliciano; Laura Hanson; Leslie Blackhall; Tammie Quest; Kimberly Curseen; Carl Grey; Ramona Rhodes; Laura Shoemaker; Maria Silveira; Stacy Fischer; Sean O'Mahony; Kostantinos Leventakos; Chardria Trotter; Isabella Sereno; Mihir Kamdar; Jennifer Temel; Joseph A Greer Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Benzi M Kluger; Christina L Vaughan; Maisha T Robinson; Claire Creutzfeldt; Indu Subramanian; Robert G Holloway Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-06-26 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Lawrence Asprec; Craig D Blinderman; Ana Berlin; Mary E Callahan; Eric Widera; Vyjeyanthi S Periyakoil; Alexander K Smith; Shunichi Nakagawa Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Diana Jiménez-Rodríguez; Diego Ruiz-Salvador; María Del Mar Rodríguez Salvador; Mercedes Pérez-Heredia; Francisco José Muñoz Ronda; Oscar Arrogante Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Theis Bitz Trabjerg; Lars Henrik Jensen; Jens Søndergaard; Jeffrey James Sisler; Dorte Gilså Hansen Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Hannah M James; Chrysanthi Papoutsi; Joseph Wherton; Trisha Greenhalgh; Sara E Shaw Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Diana Jiménez-Rodríguez; Azucena Santillán García; Jesús Montoro Robles; María Del Mar Rodríguez Salvador; Francisco José Muñoz Ronda; Oscar Arrogante Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Chariklia Tziraki; Corrina Grimes; Filipa Ventura; Rónán O'Caoimh; Silvina Santana; Veronica Zavagli; Silvia Varani; Donatella Tramontano; João Apóstolo; Bart Geurden; Vincenzo De Luca; Giovanni Tramontano; Maria Rosaria Romano; Marilena Anastasaki; Christos Lionis; Rafael Rodríguez-Acuña; Manuel Luis Capelas; Tânia Dos Santos Afonso; David William Molloy; Giuseppe Liotta; Guido Iaccarino; Maria Triassi; Patrik Eklund; Regina Roller-Wirnsberger; Maddalena Illario Journal: Prim Health Care Res Dev Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 1.458