TY - JOUR
T1 - Preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families
T2 - a protocol for an umbrella review
AU - Pinto, Sara
AU - Lopes, Silvia
AU - Bruno De Sousa, Andrea
AU - Gomes, Barbara
N1 - Funding Information:
This protocol is part of the research project ' EOLinPLACE: Choice of where we die: a classification reform to discern diversity in individual end of life pathways’. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 948609).
Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
PY - 2023/3/29
Y1 - 2023/3/29
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Adult palliative care
KW - Paediatric palliative care
KW - PALLIATIVE CARE
KW - Protocols & guidelines
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85151196272&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066374
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066374
M3 - Article
C2 - 36990480
AN - SCOPUS:85151196272
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 13
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
IS - 3
M1 - e066374
ER -