4.5 Article

Mapping levels of palliative care development: A global view

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT
卷 35, 期 5, 页码 469-485

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.06.006

关键词

palliative care; hospice; map; global development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Palliative care is coming to be regarded as a human right. Yet globally, palliative care development appears patchy and comparative data about the distribution of services are generally unavailable. Our purpose is to categorize hospice-palliative care development, country by country, throughout the world, and then depict this development in a series of world and regional maps. We adopt a multimethod approach, which involves the synthesis of evidence from published and grey literature, regional experts, and a task force of the European Association of Palliative Care. Development is categorized using a four-part typology constructed during a previous review of palliative care in Africa. The four categories are (1) no identified hospice-palliative care activity, (2) capacity building activity but no service, (3) localized palliative care provision, and (4) countries where palliative care activities are approaching integration with mainstream service providers. lye found palliative care services in 1151234 countries. Total count-ties in each category are as follows: (1) no identified activity 78 (33%), (2) capacity building 41 (18%), (3) localized provision 80 (34%), and (4) approaching integration 35 (15%). The ratio of services to Population among Group 4 countries ranges from 1:43, 000 (in the UK) to 1:4.28 million (in Kenya); among Group 3 countries it ranges from 1:14,000 (in Gibraltar) to 1:158 million (in Pakistan). The typology differentiates levels of palliative care development across the four hemispheres and in rich and poor settings. Although half of the world's countries have a palliative care service, far more are needed before such services are generally accessible worldwide.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据