Background: Advanced cancer patients often die in hospital after receiving needless, aggressive treatment. Although palliative care improves symptom management, barriers to accessing palliative care services affect its utilisation, and such disparities challenge the equitable provision of palliative care. This study aimed to identify which factors are associated with inequitable palliative care service utilisation among advanced cancer patients by applying the Andersen Behavioural Model of Health Services Use. Material and methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using administrative healthcare data. A total of 13,656 patients residing in the Lazio region of Italy, who died of an advanced cancer-related cause-either in hospital or in a specialised palliative care facility-during the period of 2012-2016 were included in the study. Potential predictors of specialised palliative service utilisation were explored by grouping the following factors: predisposing factors (i.e., individuals' characteristics), enabling factors (i.e., systemic/structural factors) and need factors (i.e., type/severity of illness). Results: The logistic hierarchical regression showed that older patients (odds ratio [OR] ¼ 1.45; <0.0001) of Caucasian ethnicity (OR ¼ 4.17; 0.02), with a solid tumour (OR ¼ 1.87; <0.0001) and with a longer survival time (OR ¼ 2.09; <0.0001) were more likely to be enrolled in a palliative care service. Patients who lived farther from a specialised palliative care facility (OR ¼ 0.13; <0.0001) and in an urban area (OR ¼ 0.58; <0.0001) were less likely to be enrolled. Conclusion:This study found that socio-demographic (age, ethnicity), clinical (type of tumour, survival time) and organisational (area of residence, distance from service) factors affect the utilisation of specialised palliative care services. The fact that service utilisation is not only a function of patients' needs but also of other aspects demonstrates the presence of inequity in access to palliative care among advanced cancer patients.
For the celebration of International Nurses Day in 2022, the International Council of Nurses (ICN) has proposed the slogan “Nursing, a voice to lead: Invest in nurses and respect rights for global health” [1]. [...]
Objective: This review will map and define the terminology used in the literature for “best practice” as well as its underpinning framework/methodology. Introduction: Numerous international organizations and institutions have sought to develop models or frameworks to guide health care providers to integrate the best evidence into clinical practice. However, different concepts related to best practice have been used, both in the biomedical literature and by public institutions, leading to a lack of consistency in definitions of the term. This poses a potential difficulty for clinical professionals in applying evidence effectively to achieve desired patient outcomes. Inclusion criteria: This review will adopt the following inclusion criteria: (i) the study must contain a definition of the term “best practice” or its related concepts; (ii) the concept of best practice must refer to clinical activities and not have organizational features; and (iii) any study design can be included. Studies will be excluded if they describe a definition of best practice that is not directly related to clinical practice (eg, business). Methods: The review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. An initial search of MEDLINE identified keywords and MeSH terms. Then, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and Google Scholar will be searched from 2001 until the present, the year in which the first definition of best practice appeared in the literature. Four pairs of reviewers will independently select studies and perform data extraction and data synthesis. Data will be presented in figures or tables, accompanied by a narrative summary. Searches will be limited to articles in English, Italian, German, French, and Spanish. Review registration number: OSF: https://osf.io/52vxe/
Background: The Caregiver Contribution to Self-Care of Heart Failure (CC-SCHFI) is a theoretically driven instrument to measure the extent to which caregivers support heart failure (HF) patients to perform self-care. The CC-SCHFI measures caregivers’ contribution to self-care maintenance and self-care management and caregiver confidence in contributing to heart failure patients’ self-care. To date, the CC-SCHFI has never been tested in Spanish-speaking populations. Purpose: To translate the CC-SCHFI from English into Spanish and to test its psychometric characteristics. Method: CC-SCHFI translation and back-translation were performed according to the Beaton et al. methodology. Data from a cross-sectional study conducted in an outpatient clinic in Spain were used for the analysis. Psychometric analysis was performed with exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with oblique rotation. Results: Caregivers had a mean age of 60.5 years (SD 14,9) and the majority were female (85%). Data from 220 caregivers were analyzed. From EFA, using the principal axis factoring method, we extracted two factors in the self-care maintenance subscale (“treatment adherence behaviors” and “symptom control and maintenance behaviors”), two in the self-care monitoring subscale (“illness behaviors” and “prevention behaviors”) and one factor for the self-efficacy subscale. The Pearson’s rank correlation coefficients between SCHFI and CCSCHFI showed significant correlation in each subdimension.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.