• J Pain Symptom Manage · Sep 2023

    Review Meta Analysis

    Interventions to promote end-of-life conversations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

    • Silvia Gonella, Valerio Dimonte, Ylenia Arnone, Beatrice Albanesi, Paola Berchialla, Paola Di Giulio, and J T van der Steen.
    • Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino (S.G.), Torino, Italy. Electronic address: silvia.gonella@unito.it.
    • J Pain Symptom Manage. 2023 Sep 1; 66 (3): e365e398e365-e398.

    ContextAlthough several interventions aimed to promote end-of-life conversations are available, it is unclear whether and how these affect delivery of end-of-life conversations. Measuring the processes associated with high-quality end-of-life care may trigger improvement.ObjectivesTo estimate the effect of interventions aimed to promote end-of-life conversations in clinical encounters with patients with advanced chronic or terminal illness or their family, on process indicators of end-of-life conversations.MethodsSystematic review with meta-analysis (PROSPERO no. CRD42021289471). Four databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus) were searched up to September 30, 2021. The primary outcomes were any process indicators of end-of-life conversations. Results of pairwise meta-analyses were presented as Risk Ratio (RR) for occurrence, standardized mean difference (SMD) for quality and ratio of means (ROM) for duration. Meta-analysis was not performed when fewer than four studies were available.ResultsA total of 4,663 articles were scanned. Eighteen studies were included in the systematic review and 16 entered at least one meta-analysis: documented occurrence (n = 8), patient-reported occurrence (n = 4), patient-reported-quality (n = 4), duration (n = 4). There was significant variability in settings, patients' clinical conditions, and professionals. No significant effect of interventions on documented occurrence (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.84-2.84; I2 91%), patient-reported occurrence (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.80-2.91; I2 95%), patient-reported quality (SMD 0.83, 95% CI -1.06 to 2.71; I2 99%), or duration (ROM 1.20, 95% CI 0.95-1.51; I2 65%) of end-of-life conversations was found. Data on frequency were conflicting. Interventions targeting multiple stakeholders promoted earlier and more comprehensive conversations.ConclusionHeterogeneity was considerable, but findings suggest no significant effect of interventions on occurrence, patient-reported quality and duration of end-of-life conversations. Nevertheless, we found indications for interventions targeting multiple stakeholders to promote earlier and more comprehensive conversations.Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.