Search

Background: Though randomized controlled trials of non-pharmacological palliative care interventions have shown positive outcomes, findings are often generalized with limited consideration for the impact of the influence of race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion on said outcomes. Aim: To identify trends and gaps in global reporting of racial, ethnic, nationality, and religious demographics in non-pharmacological palliative care randomized controlled trials. Design: We conducted a scoping review guided by the Joanna Briggs methodology, Data sources: Global randomized controlled trials published in English, between 1999 and 2021 extracted from databases: Cochrane, PubMed, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria were non-pharmacological palliative care interventions for people with serious conditions reporting on one or more of the demographics of race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion. Results: Our review included 131 (44%) articles published from 19 countries, predominantly the USA (n = 84, 64%). Most studies focused on cancer (n = 71, 54%) in inpatient settings (n = 85, 64%). Race was the most commonly reported demographic (n = 93, 70%), followed by ethnicity (n = 54, 41%), religion (n = 46, 35%), nationality (n = 20, 15%). Within racial reporting, 86 (92%) indicating a majority White/Caucasian sample. Only 14 (10%) articles provided context connecting participant demographics to intervention outcomes. Demographic data was discussed only as a limitation to generalizability in 18 cases (41%). Conclusions: Improving greater transparency in study reporting of social and historical context about population demographics, including specific demographic data collected, may better identify unmet palliative needs, facilitate cross-cultural interpretation, and improve adaptation and implementation of non-pharmacological palliative care interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative care demands in the United States are growing amid a comparatively small workforce of palliative care clinicians and researchers. Therefore, determining research and clinical practice priorities is essential for streamlining initiatives to advance palliative care science and practice. Objectives: To identify and rank palliative care research and clinical practice priority areas through expert consensus. Design: Using a modified Delphi method, U.S. palliative care experts identified and ranked priority areas in palliative care research and clinical practice. Priorities were thematically grouped and analyzed for topic content and frequency; univariate analysis used the median of each priority item ranking, with a cutoff median of ≤8 indicating >76% agreement for an item's ranking. Results: In total, 27 interdisciplinary pediatric and adult palliative care experts representing 19 different academic institutions and medical centers participated in the preliminary survey and the first Delphi round, and 22 participated in the second Delphi round. The preliminary survey generated 78 initial topics, which were developed into 22 priority areas during the consensus meeting. The top five priorities were (1) access to palliative care, (2) equity in palliative care, (3) adequate financing of palliative care, (4) provision of palliative care in primary care settings, and (5) palliative care workforce challenges. Conclusions: These expert-identified priority areas provide guidance for researchers and practitioners to develop innovative models, policies, and interventions, thereby enriching the quality of life for those requiring palliative care services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Asynchronous communication via electronic modes (e-communication), including patient portals, secure messaging services, SMS text messaging, and email, is increasingly used to supplement synchronous face-to-face medical visits; however, little is known about its quality in pediatric settings. Objective: This review aimed to summarize contemporary literature on pediatric caregivers' experiences with and perspectives of e-communication with their child's health care team to identify how e-communication has been optimized to improve patient care. Methods: A scoping review following the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework searched PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science using terms such as "Electronic Health Records" and "Communication" from 2013 to 2023 that discussed caregiver experiences and perspectives of e-communication with their child's health care provider. Studies were excluded if they were abstracts, non-English papers, nonscientific papers, systematic reviews, or quality improvement initiatives, or pertained to synchronous telemedicine. We conducted a two-step screening process by scanning the title and abstract and reviewing the full text by two independent screeners to confirm eligibility. From an initial 903 articles identified via the database search, 23 articles fulfilled all the inclusion criteria and are included in this review. Results: Of the 23 articles meeting the inclusion criteria, 11 used quantitative methods, 7 used qualitative methods, and 5 used mixed methods. The caregiver sample sizes ranged from 51 to 3339 in the quantitative studies and 8 to 36 in the qualitative and mixed methods studies. A majority (n=17) used the patient portal that was self-categorized by the study. Secure messaging through a portal or other mobile health app was used in 26% (n=6) of the studies, while nonsecure messaging outside of the portal was used 17% (n=4) of the time and email was used 33.3% (n=8) of the time. In 19 of the studies, parents reported positive experiences with and a desire for e-communication methods. Conclusions: The literature overwhelmingly supported caregiver satisfaction with and desire for e-communication in health care, but no literature intentionally studied how to improve the quality of e-communication, which is a critical gap to address. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Beacon Community Cooperative Agreement Program is funding 17 communities to build and strengthen their health information technology (IT) capabilities to enhance care coordination, improve patient and population health, and reduce or restrain costs. Based on the experiences and evidence generated by these communities, the program hopes to illustrate the possibilities of leveraging health IT to achieve desired goals. Doing so requires rigorous evaluation work, which is the subject of this issue brief. Based on semistructured interviews with representatives from each Beacon Community, the brief outlines various study designs, evaluation approaches, outcome measures, and data sources in use. It also identifies some common challenges, including establishing governance models, determining baseline measures, and assessing impact in a relatively constrained timeframe. Technical assistance in disseminating and publishing findings and assessing return on investments will be offered in the coming year.