Literature DB >> 34952169

Cross Country Comparison of Expert Assessments of the Quality of Death and Dying 2021.

Eric A Finkelstein1, Afsan Bhadelia2, Cynthia Goh3, Drishti Baid4, Ratna Singh5, Sushma Bhatnagar6, Stephen R Connor7.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Few efforts have attempted to quantify how well countries deliver end-of-life (EOL) care.
OBJECTIVES: To score, grade, and rank countries (and Hong Kong and Taiwan) on the quality of EOL care based on assessments from country experts using a novel preference-based scoring algorithm.
METHODS: We fielded a survey to country experts around the world, asking them to assess the performance of their country on 13 key indicators of EOL care. Results were combined with preference weights from caregiver-proxies of recently deceased patients to generate a preference-weighted summary score. The scores were then converted to grades (from A-F) and a ranking was created for all included countries.
RESULTS: The final sample included responses from 181 experts representing 81 countries with 2 or more experts reporting. The 6 countries who received the highest assessment scores and a grade of A were United Kingdom, Ireland, Taiwan, Australia, Republic of Korea, and Costa Rica. Only Costa Rica (upper middle) is not a high income country. Not until Uganda (ranked 31st) does a low-income country appear on the ranking. Based on the assessment scores, twenty-one countries received a failing grade, with only two - Czech Republic (66th), and Portugal (75th) - being high income countries.
CONCLUSION: This study provides an example of how a preference-based scoring algorithm and input from key stakeholders can be used to assess EOL health system performance. Results highlight the large disparities in assessments of the quality of EOL care across countries, and especially between the highest income countries and others.
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Palliative care; assessment; death; end-of-life; index; quality; ranking

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34952169     DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2021.12.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage        ISSN: 0885-3924            Impact factor:   3.612


  4 in total

1.  The development of a questionnaire to assess the willingness of Chinese community health workers to implement advance care planning.

Authors:  Qunfang Miao; Bingyu Xing; Jingyi Li; Yanjuan Li
Journal:  BMC Palliat Care       Date:  2022-09-09       Impact factor: 3.113

2.  Is progress being made on Canada's palliative care framework and action plan? A survey of stakeholder perspectives.

Authors:  Barbara Pesut; Sally Thorne; Anne Huisken; David Kenneth Wright; Kenneth Chambaere; Carol Tishelman; Sunita Ghosh
Journal:  BMC Palliat Care       Date:  2022-10-14       Impact factor: 3.113

Review 3.  Global Research Trend and Bibliometric Analysis of Current Studies on End-of-Life Care.

Authors:  Genevieve Ataa Fordjour; Amy Yin Man Chow
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-09-06       Impact factor: 4.614

4.  What are the acceptances and associated influences of hospice care in Mainland China? A national cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Xinyue Zhang; Xun Zhang; Yiqi Li; Tianle Chen; Lixuen Siow; Xinxin Ye; Yinlin Wang; Yujia Wang; Wai-Kit Ming; Xinying Sun; Ze Xiang; Yibo Wu; Jian Wu
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-09-23
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.