Suppr超能文献

是否有证据表明姑息治疗团队会改变患者及其照顾者的临终体验?

Is there evidence that palliative care teams alter end-of-life experiences of patients and their caregivers?

作者信息

Higginson Irene J, Finlay Ilora G, Goodwin Danielle M, Hood Kerry, Edwards Adrian G K, Cook Alison, Douglas Hannah Rose, Normand Charles E

机构信息

Department of Palliative Care and Policy, Guy's, King's and St. Thomas' School of Medicine, King's College London, Weston Education Center, London, United Kingdom.

出版信息

J Pain Symptom Manage. 2003 Feb;25(2):150-68. doi: 10.1016/s0885-3924(02)00599-7.

Abstract

Palliative care provision varies widely, and the effectiveness of palliative and hospice care teams (PCHCT) is unproven. To determine the effect of PCHCT, 10 electronic databases (to 2000), 4 relevant journals, associated reference lists, and the grey literature were searched. All PCHCT evaluations were included. Anecdotal and case reports were excluded. Forty-four studies evaluated PCHCT provision. Teams were home care (22), hospital-based (9), combined home/hospital care (4), inpatient units (3), and integrated teams (6). Studies were mostly Grade II or III quality. Funnel plots indicated slight publication bias. Meta-regression (26 studies) found slight positive effect, of approximately 0.1, of PCHCTs on patient outcomes, independent of team make-up, patient diagnosis, country, or study design. Meta-analysis (19 studies) demonstrated small benefit on patients' pain (odds ratio [OR]: 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.64), other symptoms (OR: 0.51, CI: 0.30-0.88), and a non-significant trend towards benefits for satisfaction, and therapeutic interventions. Data regarding home deaths were equivocal. Meta-synthesis (all studies) found wide variations in the type of service delivered by each team; there was no discernible difference in outcomes between city, urban, and rural areas. Evidence of benefit was strongest for home care. Only one study provided full economic cost-benefit evaluation. This is the first study to quantitatively demonstrate benefit from PCHCTs. Such comparisons were limited by the quality of the research.

摘要

姑息治疗的提供情况差异很大,姑息与临终关怀团队(PCHCT)的有效性尚未得到证实。为了确定PCHCT的效果,检索了10个电子数据库(截至2000年)、4种相关期刊、相关参考文献列表以及灰色文献。纳入了所有PCHCT评估。排除了轶事和病例报告。44项研究评估了PCHCT的提供情况。团队包括居家护理团队(22个)、医院护理团队(9个)、居家/医院联合护理团队(4个)、住院病房团队(3个)和综合团队(6个)。研究质量大多为II级或III级。漏斗图显示存在轻微的发表偏倚。Meta回归分析(26项研究)发现,PCHCT对患者结局有轻微的积极影响,约为0.1,且与团队组成、患者诊断、国家或研究设计无关。Meta分析(19项研究)表明,对患者疼痛有小的益处(优势比[OR]:0.38,95%置信区间[CI]:0.23 - 0.64),对其他症状也有小的益处(OR:0.51,CI:0.30 - 0.88),对满意度和治疗干预有不显著的益处趋势。关于在家中死亡的数据不明确。Meta综合分析(所有研究)发现每个团队提供的服务类型差异很大;城市、城镇和农村地区在结局方面没有明显差异。居家护理的益处证据最为确凿。只有一项研究提供了完整的经济成本效益评估。这是第一项定量证明PCHCT有益处的研究。此类比较受到研究质量的限制。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验