González-Jaramillo Valentina, Krikorian Alicia, Tripodoro Vilma, Jorge Margarita, Orellana Sebastián, López Francy, Vélez Maria Clara, Noguera Tatiana, Montilla Silvina, Felber Sibylle, Zambrano Sofía C, Eychmüller Steffen
University Center for Palliative Care, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 38, Bern 3010, Switzerland.
Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia.
Palliat Care Soc Pract. 2025 Jan 26;19:26323524251314899. doi: 10.1177/26323524251314899. eCollection 2025.
As Compassionate Communities (CCs) are developing worldwide, there is a growing need to systematically assess if they are having the expected effects on the community. Although having a single strategy would be ideal in terms of standardization and comparison, due to the inherent heterogeneity of CCs, it is not known how feasible this would be.
To assess the feasibility of creating a general strategy, based on the results of a series of focus groups conducted across three diverse CCs, to guide the evaluation of already existing programs and the development of new ones.
Focus groups in three cities, including different types of stakeholders, were conducted to identify potential outcomes (benefits) from CCs, as the base of a general strategy to assess CCs.
We coded the discussions and built a list of the outcomes mentioned. Then, we merged those similar enough into a more general one that encompassed the others. We extracted from reviews all the CCs outcomes that have been measured. We merged the outcomes from the focus groups and the reviews and built a single list.
We obtained a final list of 46 outcomes; 44 were reported from the focus groups, and two more were added from the reviews. Of the 44 from the focus groups, 22 (50%) were present in the three CCs, 14(32%) were present in two CCs, and the remaining 8 (18%) were present only in one compassionate community. There were outcomes commonly reported both in the three CCs and in the literature reviews related to training the general community in compassion and end-of-life topics, facilitating the development of community networks, and generating public spaces for social integration.
Half of the identified outcomes were reported in the three CCs. This indicates the feasibility of creating a single strategy but also reflects the need to leave room to include other aspects specific to each community according to its context in the assessment.
随着全球范围内的关爱社区（CCs）不断发展，越来越需要系统地评估它们是否对社区产生了预期效果。尽管就标准化和比较而言，采用单一策略是理想的，但由于关爱社区固有的异质性，尚不清楚这在多大程度上可行。
基于在三个不同的关爱社区进行的一系列焦点小组讨论结果，评估制定一项通用策略以指导对现有项目的评估和新项目开发的可行性。
在三个城市开展了焦点小组讨论，参与者包括不同类型的利益相关者，以确定关爱社区的潜在成果（益处），作为评估关爱社区通用策略的基础。
我们对讨论内容进行编码，并列出提及的成果清单。然后，将那些足够相似的成果合并为一个更通用的成果，该成果涵盖其他成果。我们从综述中提取了所有已测量的关爱社区成果。我们将焦点小组讨论的成果与综述中的成果合并，并构建了一个单一清单。
我们得到了一份包含46项成果的最终清单；焦点小组讨论报告了44项，综述又补充了2项。在焦点小组讨论的44项成果中，22项（50%）在三个关爱社区中都有出现，14项（32%）在两个关爱社区中出现，其余8项（18%）仅在一个关爱社区中出现。在三个关爱社区以及文献综述中都普遍报告了与以下方面相关的成果：对普通社区进行关爱和临终话题培训、促进社区网络发展以及打造社会融合的公共空间。
所确定的成果中有一半在三个关爱社区中都有报告。这表明制定单一策略是可行的，但也反映出在评估中需要根据每个社区的具体情况留出空间，以纳入其他特定方面。
