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

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Pinto, Sara
Data de Publicação: 2023
Outros Autores: Lopes, Silvia, Sousa, Andrea Bruno de, Gomes, Barbara
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