Preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families: a protocol for an umbrella review
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2023 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10316/107615 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066374 |
Resumo: | Introduction For most of history, the majority of people died at home surrounded by family. However, the global scenario has progressively changed towards hospital death and more recently in some countries back again towards home, with indication that COVID-19 may have further increased the number of home deaths. It is therefore timely to establish the state-of-the-art about people’s preferences for place of end-of-life care and death, to understand the full spectrum of preferences, nuances and commonalities worldwide. This protocol describes the methods for an umbrella review which aims to examine and synthesise the available evidence regarding preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families. Methods and analysis We will search for relevant systematic reviews (quantitative and/or qualitative) in six databases from inception without language restrictions: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PROSPERO and Epistemonikos. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for umbrella reviews, eligibility screening, data extraction and quality assessment (using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist) will be done by two independent reviewers. We will report the screening process using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram. Study double-counting will be reported using the Graphical Representation of Overlap for OVErviews tool. A narrative synthesis will include ‘Summary of Evidence’ tables to address five review questions (distribution of preferences and reasons, influencing variables, place of care vs place of death, changes over time, congruence between preferred and actual places), grading the evidence on each question using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and/or GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research. Ethics and dissemination This review does not require ethical approval. The results will be presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022339983. |
id |
RCAP_60bc790a6035e0ed9e767bac25628020 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:estudogeral.uc.pt:10316/107615 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families: a protocol for an umbrella reviewIntroduction For most of history, the majority of people died at home surrounded by family. However, the global scenario has progressively changed towards hospital death and more recently in some countries back again towards home, with indication that COVID-19 may have further increased the number of home deaths. It is therefore timely to establish the state-of-the-art about people’s preferences for place of end-of-life care and death, to understand the full spectrum of preferences, nuances and commonalities worldwide. This protocol describes the methods for an umbrella review which aims to examine and synthesise the available evidence regarding preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families. Methods and analysis We will search for relevant systematic reviews (quantitative and/or qualitative) in six databases from inception without language restrictions: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PROSPERO and Epistemonikos. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for umbrella reviews, eligibility screening, data extraction and quality assessment (using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist) will be done by two independent reviewers. We will report the screening process using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram. Study double-counting will be reported using the Graphical Representation of Overlap for OVErviews tool. A narrative synthesis will include ‘Summary of Evidence’ tables to address five review questions (distribution of preferences and reasons, influencing variables, place of care vs place of death, changes over time, congruence between preferred and actual places), grading the evidence on each question using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and/or GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research. Ethics and dissemination This review does not require ethical approval. The results will be presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022339983.The project leading to this application has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 948609).2023-03-29info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://hdl.handle.net/10316/107615http://hdl.handle.net/10316/107615https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066374engPinto, SaraLopes, SilviaSousa, Andrea Bruno deGomes, Barbarainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-08-18T15:57:01Zoai:estudogeral.uc.pt:10316/107615Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T21:23:42.895529Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families: a protocol for an umbrella review |
title |
Preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families: a protocol for an umbrella review |
spellingShingle |
Preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families: a protocol for an umbrella review Pinto, Sara |
title_short |
Preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families: a protocol for an umbrella review |
title_full |
Preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families: a protocol for an umbrella review |
title_fullStr |
Preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families: a protocol for an umbrella review |
title_full_unstemmed |
Preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families: a protocol for an umbrella review |
title_sort |
Preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families: a protocol for an umbrella review |
author |
Pinto, Sara |
author_facet |
Pinto, Sara Lopes, Silvia Sousa, Andrea Bruno de Gomes, Barbara |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Lopes, Silvia Sousa, Andrea Bruno de Gomes, Barbara |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Pinto, Sara Lopes, Silvia Sousa, Andrea Bruno de Gomes, Barbara |
description |
Introduction For most of history, the majority of people died at home surrounded by family. However, the global scenario has progressively changed towards hospital death and more recently in some countries back again towards home, with indication that COVID-19 may have further increased the number of home deaths. It is therefore timely to establish the state-of-the-art about people’s preferences for place of end-of-life care and death, to understand the full spectrum of preferences, nuances and commonalities worldwide. This protocol describes the methods for an umbrella review which aims to examine and synthesise the available evidence regarding preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families. Methods and analysis We will search for relevant systematic reviews (quantitative and/or qualitative) in six databases from inception without language restrictions: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PROSPERO and Epistemonikos. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for umbrella reviews, eligibility screening, data extraction and quality assessment (using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist) will be done by two independent reviewers. We will report the screening process using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram. Study double-counting will be reported using the Graphical Representation of Overlap for OVErviews tool. A narrative synthesis will include ‘Summary of Evidence’ tables to address five review questions (distribution of preferences and reasons, influencing variables, place of care vs place of death, changes over time, congruence between preferred and actual places), grading the evidence on each question using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and/or GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research. Ethics and dissemination This review does not require ethical approval. The results will be presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022339983. |
publishDate |
2023 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2023-03-29 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10316/107615 http://hdl.handle.net/10316/107615 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066374 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10316/107615 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066374 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799134123743248384 |