Exploring the attitudes, beliefs, and values of the long-term care workforce towards palliative care: A qualitative evidence synthesis protocol

IF 0.9 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE Pub Date : 2021-11-22 DOI:10.1080/09699260.2021.2000807
S. Karacsony, J. Martyn, J. Rosenberg, S. Andrews
{"title":"Exploring the attitudes, beliefs, and values of the long-term care workforce towards palliative care: A qualitative evidence synthesis protocol","authors":"S. Karacsony, J. Martyn, J. Rosenberg, S. Andrews","doi":"10.1080/09699260.2021.2000807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Aim The long-term care workforce is a significant provider of palliative care. The majority of older people being admitted to long-term care have palliative care needs and many are approaching end of life. The long-term care workforce comprises both registered health care professionals and unlicensed health care workers (UHCW) who provide most direct care. Studies that have examined palliative care competence in long-term care have focused on staff knowledge. However, it is also important to understand staff attitudes, beliefs, and values towards palliative care because these attributes influence behaviours related to care provision. The aim of the qualitative evidence synthesis is to identify and appraise the best available qualitative evidence on the attitudes, beliefs, and values of the long-term care workforce towards palliative care. Inclusion criteria The review will consider original research that reports qualitative findings of long-term care staff and their attitudes, beliefs, and values regarding palliative care for residents of long-term care facilities. Methods The following databases will be searched for eligible papers: CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, PsychINFO, and Scopus. Studies that meet the inclusion criteria by addressing all of the phenomena of interest will be reviewed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. Two reviewers will independently assess the studies for methodological quality. The data will be extracted using the standardized JBI SUMARI extraction tool. Specific details about authors and publication date, study design, aims, context, population, cultural and linguistic background, location, main findings, limitations, and conclusions will be extracted and a level of credibility assigned. Categories will be developed from the findings. The findings will be presented diagrammatically and accompanied by a narrative to explain categories and synthesised findings. Discussion The review of the literature will synthesis key findings pertaining to the attitudes, beliefs, and values of the workforce providing palliative care to older people in long-term care, beyond what is known about palliative care knowledge in this workforce.","PeriodicalId":45106,"journal":{"name":"PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09699260.2021.2000807","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background and Aim The long-term care workforce is a significant provider of palliative care. The majority of older people being admitted to long-term care have palliative care needs and many are approaching end of life. The long-term care workforce comprises both registered health care professionals and unlicensed health care workers (UHCW) who provide most direct care. Studies that have examined palliative care competence in long-term care have focused on staff knowledge. However, it is also important to understand staff attitudes, beliefs, and values towards palliative care because these attributes influence behaviours related to care provision. The aim of the qualitative evidence synthesis is to identify and appraise the best available qualitative evidence on the attitudes, beliefs, and values of the long-term care workforce towards palliative care. Inclusion criteria The review will consider original research that reports qualitative findings of long-term care staff and their attitudes, beliefs, and values regarding palliative care for residents of long-term care facilities. Methods The following databases will be searched for eligible papers: CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, PsychINFO, and Scopus. Studies that meet the inclusion criteria by addressing all of the phenomena of interest will be reviewed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. Two reviewers will independently assess the studies for methodological quality. The data will be extracted using the standardized JBI SUMARI extraction tool. Specific details about authors and publication date, study design, aims, context, population, cultural and linguistic background, location, main findings, limitations, and conclusions will be extracted and a level of credibility assigned. Categories will be developed from the findings. The findings will be presented diagrammatically and accompanied by a narrative to explain categories and synthesised findings. Discussion The review of the literature will synthesis key findings pertaining to the attitudes, beliefs, and values of the workforce providing palliative care to older people in long-term care, beyond what is known about palliative care knowledge in this workforce.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索长期护理人员对姑息治疗的态度、信念和价值观:一项定性证据综合方案
背景和目的长期护理人员是姑息治疗的重要提供者。大多数接受长期护理的老年人都需要姑息治疗,许多人正在接近生命的尽头。长期护理人员包括注册的卫生保健专业人员和提供最直接护理的无牌卫生保健工作者。研究已经检查了姑息治疗能力在长期护理集中在工作人员的知识。然而,了解工作人员对姑息治疗的态度、信念和价值观也很重要,因为这些属性会影响与提供护理有关的行为。定性证据综合的目的是识别和评估关于长期护理工作人员对姑息治疗的态度、信念和价值观的最佳定性证据。纳入标准本综述将考虑报告长期护理人员及其对长期护理机构居民姑息治疗的态度、信念和价值观的定性发现的原始研究。方法检索符合条件的论文:CINAHL、EMBASE、PubMed、PsychINFO和Scopus。通过解决所有感兴趣的现象来满足纳入标准的研究将使用乔安娜布里格斯研究所(JBI)的方法对定性证据进行系统评价。两名审稿人将独立评估研究的方法学质量。使用标准化的JBI SUMARI提取工具提取数据。将提取有关作者和出版日期、研究设计、目的、上下文、人口、文化和语言背景、地点、主要发现、局限性和结论的具体细节,并指定可信度水平。将根据调查结果制定分类。调查结果将以图表形式呈现,并附有解释类别和综合调查结果的叙述。对文献的回顾将综合有关为长期护理的老年人提供姑息治疗的工作人员的态度、信念和价值观的主要发现,超出了该工作人员对姑息治疗知识的了解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE
PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
11.80%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Progress in Palliative Care is a peer reviewed, multidisciplinary journal with an international perspective. It provides a central point of reference for all members of the palliative care community: medical consultants, nurses, hospital support teams, home care teams, hospice directors and administrators, pain centre staff, social workers, chaplains, counsellors, information staff, paramedical staff and self-help groups. The emphasis of the journal is on the rapid exchange of information amongst those working in palliative care. Progress in Palliative Care embraces all aspects of the management of the problems of end-stage disease.
期刊最新文献
The impact of COVID-19 and community services on palliative care unit admissions: A retrospective cohort study A qualitative evidence synthesis exploring the attitudes, beliefs and values of the long-term care workforce towards palliative care Evidence-based physiotherapy interventions: evaluation of current practice in a palliative care service Feasibility and economic benefits of community-based palliative care in regional Australia: A case study with cost analysis Exploring the competency and confidence levels of physiotherapists in the management of patients diagnosed with life-limiting illnesses
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1