4.5 Review

Is there evidence that palliative care teams alter end-of-life experiences of patients and their caregivers?

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT
卷 25, 期 2, 页码 150-168

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0885-3924(02)00599-7

关键词

palliative care; terminal care; systematic review; hospital; hospice; home care; end-of-life; evaluation; cost-effectiveness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Palliative care provision varies widely, and the effectiveness of palliative and hospice care teams (PCHCT) is unproven. To determine the effect of PCHCT, 10 electronic databases (to 2000), 4 relevant journals, associated reference lists, and the grey literature were searched. All PCHCT evaluations were included. Anecdotal and case reports were excluded. Forty-four studies evaluated PCHCT provision. Teams were home care (22), hospital-based (9), combined home/hospital care (4), inpatient units (3), and integrated teams (6). Studies were mostly Grade II or III quality. Funnel plots indicated slight publication bias. Meta-regression (26 studies) found slight positive effect, of approximately 0.1, of PCHCTs on patient outcomes, independent of team make-up, patient diagnosis, country, or study design. Meta-analysis (19 studies) demonstrated small benefit on patients' pain (odds ratio [OR]: 0.38, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.64), other symptoms (OR: 0.51, CI: 0.30-0.88), and a non-significant trend towards benefits for satisfaction, and therapeutic interventions. Data regarding home deaths were equivocal. Metasynthesis (all studies) found wide variations in the type of service delivered by each team; there was no discerniblee difference in outcomes between city, urban, and rural areas. Evidence of benefit was strongest for home care. Only one study provided full economic cost-benefit evaluation. This is the first study to quantitatively demonstrate benefit from PCHCTs. Such comparisons were limited by the quality of the research. (C) 2003 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier All -rights reserved.

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