Mary Pilar Ingle1, Devon Check2, Daniel Hogan Slack3, Sarah H Cross4, Natalie C Ernecoff5, Daniel D Matlock6, Dio Kavalieratos7. 1. Graduate School of Social Work (M.P.I.), University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA. 2. Department of Population Health Sciences (D.C.), Duke University School of Medicine and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 3. Department of Internal Medicine (D.H.S.), University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis, California, USA. 4. Division of Palliative Medicine, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine (S.H.C., D.K.), Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 5. Division of General Internal Medicine (N.C.E.), University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 6. Division of Geriatrics (D.D.M.), University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA; VA Eastern Colorado Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center (D.D.M.), Denver, Colorado, USA. 7. Division of Palliative Medicine, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine (S.H.C., D.K.), Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Department of Epidemiology (D.K.), Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Electronic address: d.kavalieratos@emory.edu.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Palliative care (PC) research has grown over the last 20 years. Yet, the causal components and pathways of PC interventions remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: To document the prevalence and application of theoretical frameworks in developing and testing PC interventions. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of previously published systematic reviews of PC randomized clinical trials. Trials were evaluated for explicit mention of a theoretical framework, process or delivery model, or clinical practice guideline that supported the development of the intervention. We used a structured data extraction form to document study population, outcomes, and whether and how authors used a theoretical framework, process/delivery model, or clinical practice guideline. We applied an adapted coding scheme to evaluate use of theoretical frameworks. RESULTS: We reviewed 85 PC trials conducted between 1984 and 2021. Thirty-eight percent (n = 32) of trials explicitly mentioned a theoretical framework, process or delivery model, or clinical practice guideline as a foundation for the intervention design. Only nine trials included a theoretical framework, while the remaining 23 cited a process/delivery model or clinical practice guideline. CONCLUSION: Most PC trials do not cite a theoretical foundation for their intervention design. Future work should focus on developing and validating new theoretical frameworks and modifying existing theories and models to better explain the mechanisms of the variety of PC interventions.
CONTEXT: Palliative care (PC) research has grown over the last 20 years. Yet, the causal components and pathways of PC interventions remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: To document the prevalence and application of theoretical frameworks in developing and testing PC interventions. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of previously published systematic reviews of PC randomized clinical trials. Trials were evaluated for explicit mention of a theoretical framework, process or delivery model, or clinical practice guideline that supported the development of the intervention. We used a structured data extraction form to document study population, outcomes, and whether and how authors used a theoretical framework, process/delivery model, or clinical practice guideline. We applied an adapted coding scheme to evaluate use of theoretical frameworks. RESULTS: We reviewed 85 PC trials conducted between 1984 and 2021. Thirty-eight percent (n = 32) of trials explicitly mentioned a theoretical framework, process or delivery model, or clinical practice guideline as a foundation for the intervention design. Only nine trials included a theoretical framework, while the remaining 23 cited a process/delivery model or clinical practice guideline. CONCLUSION: Most PC trials do not cite a theoretical foundation for their intervention design. Future work should focus on developing and validating new theoretical frameworks and modifying existing theories and models to better explain the mechanisms of the variety of PC interventions.
Authors: Elisabeth Honinx; Tinne Smets; Ruth Piers; H Roeline W Pasman; Sheila A Payne; Katarzyna Szczerbińska; Giovanni Gambassi; Marika Kylänen; Sophie Pautex; Luc Deliens; Lieve Van den Block Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Helena Temkin-Greener; Dana B Mukamel; Heather Ladd; Susan Ladwig; Thomas V Caprio; Sally A Norton; Timothy E Quill; Tobie H Olsan; Xueya Cai Journal: Med Care Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Annika von Heymann-Horan; Pernille Envold Bidstrup; Christoffer Johansen; Nina Rottmann; Elisabeth Anne Wreford Andersen; Per Sjøgren; Hans von der Maase; Helle Timm; Jakob Kjellberg; Mai-Britt Guldin Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Ross E O'Hara; Jay G Hull; Kathleen D Lyons; Marie Bakitas; Mark T Hegel; Zhongze Li; Tim A Ahles Journal: Palliat Support Care Date: 2010-09-28
Authors: Tammy C Hoffmann; Paul P Glasziou; Isabelle Boutron; Ruairidh Milne; Rafael Perera; David Moher; Douglas G Altman; Virginia Barbour; Helen Macdonald; Marie Johnston; Sarah E Lamb; Mary Dixon-Woods; Peter McCulloch; Jeremy C Wyatt; An-Wen Chan; Susan Michie Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-03-07
Authors: Enola K Proctor; Byron J Powell; Ana A Baumann; Ashley M Hamilton; Ryan L Santens Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Corita R Grudzen; Lynne D Richardson; Pauline N Johnson; Ming Hu; Binhuan Wang; Joanna M Ortiz; Emmett A Kistler; Angela Chen; R Sean Morrison Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-05-01 Impact factor: 33.006
Authors: Areej El-Jawahri; Joseph A Greer; William F Pirl; Elyse R Park; Vicki A Jackson; Anthony L Back; Mihir Kamdar; Juliet Jacobsen; Eva H Chittenden; Simone P Rinaldi; Emily R Gallagher; Justin R Eusebio; Sarah Fishman; Harry VanDusen; Zhigang Li; Alona Muzikansky; Jennifer S Temel Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-09-11