Patients have reported a broad range of unmet needs in their receipt of clinical care at the end of life. Therefore, enhancing the quality of end-of-life care through patient-centred healthcare interactions is warranted.
Aim:
The aim of this rapid umbrella review was to synthesise previous literature reviews that have examined: (1) patient preferences for patient-centred end-of-life care; (2) barriers and enablers to patient-centred end-of-life care; (3) interventions designed to enhance patient-centred end-of-life care; and (4) patient-centred models of end-of-life care.
Design:
A rapid umbrella review was conducted and informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute’s methodological guidance for conducting umbrella reviews.
Data sources:
Three academic databases were searched for relevant literature in May 2022: MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL Plus. Inclusion criteria encompassed literature reviews that examined the topic of patient-centred care for any adult patients in end-of-life care.
Results:
A total of 92 literature reviews were identified. Findings suggest that there is often a discrepancy between patient preferences and the provision of care. These discrepancies have been associated with a range of barriers at the patient, staff and system levels. Common interventions included education and training for staff which were often met with improved patient outcomes. Patient-centred models of care were underrepresented across the literature.
Conclusions:
This review highlighted a need for healthcare systems to support staff in providing a patient-centred end of life experience through the development of a co-designed patient-centred model of care, supplemented by professional development and a systematic approach to identifying and documenting patient preferences.
HuiDNooruddinZDidwaniyaN, et al. Concepts and definitions for “actively dying,” “end of life,” “terminally ill,” “terminal care,” and “transition of care”: a systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manag2014; 47(1): 77–89.
3.
IzumiSNagaeHSakuraiC, et al. Defining end-of-life care from perspectives of nursing ethics. Nurs Ethics2012; 19(5): 608–618.
4.
GyselsMEvansNMeñacaA, et al. Diversity in defining end of life care: an obstacle or the way forward?PLoS One2013; 8(7): e68002.
5.
RadbruchLDe LimaLKnaulF, et al. Redefining palliative care—A new consensus-based definition. J Pain Symptom Manag2020; 60(4): 754–764.
6.
BreretonLClarkJIngletonC, et al. What do we know about different models of providing palliative care? Findings from a systematic review of reviews. Palliat Med2017; 31(9): 781–797.
7.
VirdunCLuckettTDavidsonPM, et al. Dying in the hospital setting: A systematic review of quantitative studies identifying the elements of end-of-life care that patients and their families rank as being most important. Palliat Med2015; 29(9): 774–796.
8.
VirdunCLuckettTLorenzK, et al. Dying in the hospital setting: A meta-synthesis identifying the elements of end-of-life care that patients and their families describe as being important. Palliat Med2017; 31(7): 587–601.
9.
SeowHBainbridgeD. A review of the essential components of quality palliative care in the home. J Palliat Med2018; 20(Suppl 1): S37–S44.
10.
Gonzalez-JaramilloVFuhrerVGonzalez-JaramilloN, et al. Impact of home-based palliative care on health care costs and hospital use: A systematic review. Palliat Support Care2021; 19(4): 474–487.
11.
GonellaSBassoIDe MarinisMG, et al. Good end-of-life care in nursing home according to the family carers’ perspective: A systematic review of qualitative findings. Palliat Med2019; 33(6): 589–606.
12.
HuiDDe La CruzMMoriM, et al. Concepts and definitions for “supportive care,” “best supportive care,” “palliative care,” and “hospice care” in the published literature, dictionaries, and textbooks. Support Care Cancer2013; 21(3): 659–685.
ZaiderTKissaneD. The assessment and management of family distress during palliative care. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care2009; 3(1): 67–71.
15.
HudsonPLRemediosCThomasK. A systematic review of psychosocial interventions for family carers of palliative care patients. BMC Palliat Care2010; 9(1): 17.
16.
Soto-RubioAPerez-MarinMTomas MiguelJ, et al. Emotional distress of patients at end-of-life and their caregivers: Interrelation and predictors. Front Psychol2018; 9: 2199.
17.
HouskaALoučkaM. Patients' autonomy at the end of life: a critical review. J Pain Symptom Manag2019; 57(4): 835–845.
18.
ViftrupDTHvidtNCPrindsC. Dignity in end-of-life care at hospice: an action research study. Scand J Caring Sci2021; 35(2): 420–429.
19.
ÖstlundUBrownHJohnstonB. Dignity conserving care at end-of-life: a narrative review. Eur J Oncol Nurs2012; 16(4): 353–367.
20.
BoveroATosiCBottoR, et al. A qualitative study to explore healthcare providers' perspectives on end-of-life patients' dignity. How can dignity be defined, and which strategies exist to maintain dignity?J Cancer Educ2022; 37(2): 280–287.
21.
CoelhoAParolaVEscobar-BravoM, et al. Comfort experience in palliative care: a phenomenological study. BMC Palliat Care2016; 15(1): 71.
22.
AxelssonLAlvarizaALindbergJ, et al. Unmet palliative care needs among patients with End-Stage kidney disease: A National Registry study about the last week of Life. J Pain Symptom Manag2018; 55(2): 236–244.
23.
WangTMolassiotisAChungBPM, et al. Unmet care needs of advanced cancer patients and their informal caregivers: a systematic review. BMC Palliat Care2018; 17(1): 96.
24.
Cox-SeignoretKMaharajRG. Unmet needs of patients with cancer in their last year of life as described by caregivers in a developing world setting: a qualitative study. BMC Palliat Care2020; 19(1): 13.
25.
MeadNBowerP. Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Soc Sci Med2000; 51(7): 1087–1110.
26.
ConstandMKMacDermidJCDal Bello-HaasV, et al. Scoping review of patient-centered care approaches in healthcare. BMC Health Serv Res2014; 14(1): 271.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. End of life care for adults - Quality standard. 2011. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs13 (accessed 28 July 2022).
29.
AromatarisEFernandezRGodfreyCM, et al. Chapter 10: Umbrella reviews. In:AromatarisEMunnZ (eds) JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI, 2020.
30.
GatesMGatesAPieperD, et al. Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement. BMJ2022; 378: e070849.
31.
TriccoACKhalilHHollyC, et al. Rapid reviews and the methodological rigor of evidence synthesis: a JBI position statement. JBI Evid Synth2022; 20(4): 944–949.
32.
HabyMMChapmanEClarkR, et al. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Health Res Policy Syst2016; 14(1): 83.
33.
TriccoACAntonyJZarinW, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med2015; 13(1): 224.
34.
GanannRCiliskaDThomasH. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci2010; 5(1): 56.
35.
MoonsPGoossensEThompsonDR. Rapid reviews: the pros and cons of an accelerated review process. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs2021; 20: 515–519.
36.
Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence systematic review software. 2022.
37.
SheaBJGrimshawJMWellsGA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol2007; 7(1): 10.
38.
SheaBJReevesBCWellsG, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ2017; 358: j4008.
39.
HennessyEAJohnsonBT. Examining overlap of included studies in meta-reviews: guidance for using the corrected covered area index. Res Synth Methods2020; 11(1): 134–145.
AlyamiHMChanRJNewK. End-of-life care preferences for people with advanced cancer and their families in intensive care units: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer2019; 27(9): 3233–3244.
42.
BarclaySMomenNCase-UptonS, et al. End-of-life care conversations with heart failure patients: a systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. Br J Gen Pract2011; 61(582): e49–e62.
43.
BélangerERodríguezCGroleauD. Shared decision-making in palliative care: a systematic mixed studies review using narrative synthesis. Palliat Med2011; 25(3): 242–261.
44.
CainCLSurboneAElkR, et al. Culture and palliative care: preferences, communication, meaning, and mutual decision making. J Pain Symptom Manag2018; 55(5): 1408–1419.
45.
Cruz-OliverDMTalamantesMSanchez-ReillyS. What evidence is available on end-of-life (EOL) care and Latino elders? A literature review. Am J Hosp Palliat Care2014; 31(1): 87–97.
46.
de GraaffFMMistiaenPDevilléWL, et al. Perspectives on care and communication involving incurably ill Turkish and Moroccan patients, relatives and professionals: a systematic literature review. BMC Palliat Care2012; 11(1): 17–53.
47.
FeuzC. Shared decision making in palliative cancer care: a literature review. J Radiother Pract2014; 13(3): 340–349.
48.
GonellaSBassoIDimonteV, et al. Association between end-of-life conversations in nursing homes and end-of-life care outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc2019; 20(3): 249–261.
49.
Goni-FusteBCrespoIMonforte-RoyoC, et al. What defines the comprehensive assessment of needs in palliative care? An integrative systematic review. Palliat Med2021; 35(4): 651–669.
50.
HardingREpiphaniouEChidgey-ClarkJ. Needs, experiences, and preferences of sexual minorities for end-of-life care and palliative care: a systematic review. J Palliat Med2012; 15(5): 602–611.
51.
HarstädeCWBlombergKBenzeinE, et al. Dignity-conserving care actions in palliative care: an integrative review of Swedish research. Scand J Caring Sci2018; 32(1): 8–23.
52.
HassonFNicholsonEMuldrewD, et al. International palliative care research priorities: A systematic review. BMC Palliat Care2020; 19(1): 16.
53.
JohnstonBLarkinPConnollyM, et al. Dignity-conserving care in palliative care settings: an integrative review. J Clin Nurs2015; 24(13-14): 1743–1772.
54.
KcomtLGoreyKM. End-of-Life preparations among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: integrative review of prevalent behaviors. J Soc Work End Palliat Care2017; 13(4): 284–301.
55.
KlopHTde VeerAJEvan DongenSI, et al. Palliative care for homeless people: a systematic review of the concerns, care needs and preferences, and the barriers and facilitators for providing palliative care. BMC Palliat Care2018; 17(1): 67.
56.
KrikorianAMaldonadoCPastranaT. Patient's perspectives on the notion of a good death: A systematic review of the literature. J Pain Symptom Manag2020; 59(1): 152–164.
57.
LoPrestiMADementFGoldHT. End-of-life care for people with cancer from ethnic minority groups: a systematic review. Am J Hosp Palliat Care2016; 33(3): 291–305.
58.
LowJPattendenJCandyB, et al. Palliative care in advanced heart failure: an international review of the perspectives of recipients and health professionals on care provision. J Card Fail2011; 17(3): 231–252.
59.
McCaffreyNBradleySRatcliffeJ, et al. What aspects of quality of life are important from palliative care patients' perspectives? A systematic review of qualitative research. J Pain Symptom Manag2016; 52(2): 318–328.
60.
MeierEAGallegosJVThomasLPM, et al. Defining a Good Death (Successful dying): Literature review and a call for research and public dialogue. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry2016; 24(4): 261–271.
61.
Mohammad KhanANJohnsonJForgraveD. Hospice care and the Islamic Faith : a narrative review. Middle East J Nurs2020; 14(1): 23–26.
62.
MomenNCBarclaySIG. Addressing 'the elephant on the table': barriers to end of life care conversations in heart failure - a literature review and narrative synthesis. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care2011; 5(4): 312–316.
63.
MossKOWilliamsIC. End-of-life preferences in Afro-Caribbean older adults: a systematic literature review. Omega2014; 69(3): 271–282.
64.
MurrayCDMcDonaldCAtkinH. The communication experiences of patients with palliative care needs: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Palliat Support Care2015; 13(2): 369–383.
65.
NgwenyaNKentenCJonesL, et al. Experiences and preferences for end-of-life care for young adults with cancer and their informal carers: a narrative synthesis. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol2017; 6(2): 200–212.
66.
PalmerJASmithAMPaasche-OrlowRS, et al. Research literature on the intersection of dementia, spirituality, and palliative care: A scoping review. J Pain Symptom Manag2020; 60(1): 116–134.
67.
PringleJJohnstonBBuchananD. Dignity and patient-centred care for people with palliative care needs in the acute hospital setting: A systematic review. Palliat Med2015; 29(8): 675–694.
68.
RahemiZWilliamsCL. Older adults of underrepresented populations and their end-of-life preferences. Adv Nurs Sci2016; 39(4): E1–E29.
69.
RossLMilesJ. Spirituality in heart failure: a review of the literature from 2014 to 2019 to identify spiritual care needs and spiritual interventions. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care2020; 14(1): 9–18.
70.
SandsdalenTHovRHøyeS, et al. Patients' preferences in palliative care: A systematic mixed studies review. Palliat Med2015; 29(5): 399–419.
71.
SarmentoVPGyselsMHigginsonIJ, et al. Home palliative care works: but how? A meta-ethnography of the experiences of patients and family caregivers. BMJ Support Palliat Care2017; 7(4): 0.
72.
SchramAWHoughamGWMeltzerDO, et al. Palliative care in critical care settings: a systematic review of communication-based competencies essential for patient and family satisfaction. Am J Hosp Palliat Care2017; 34(9): 887–895.
73.
ScottEJewellA. Supportive care needs of people with pancreatic cancer: a literature review. Cancer Nurs Pract2019; 18(5): 35–43.
74.
ShahidSTaylorEVCheethamS, et al. Key features of palliative care service delivery to Indigenous peoples in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States: a comprehensive review. BMC Palliat Care2018; 17(1): 72.
75.
ShinDWLeeJEChoB, et al. End-of-life communication in Korean older adults: with focus on advance care planning and advance directives. Geriatr Gerontol Int2016; 16(4): 407–415.
76.
VenturaADBurneySBrookerJ, et al. Home-based palliative care: a systematic literature review of the self-reported unmet needs of patients and carers. Palliat Med2014; 28(5): 391–402.
77.
ZagerBSYancyM. A call to improve practice concerning cultural sensitivity in advance directives: a review of the literature. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs2011; 8(4): 202–211.
78.
GonellaSCampagnaSBassoI, et al. Mechanisms by which end-of-life communication influences palliative-oriented care in nursing homes: A scoping review. Patient Educ Couns2019; 102(12): 2134–2144.
79.
KuosmanenLHupliMAhtiluotoS, et al. Patient participation in shared decision-making in palliative care - an integrative review. J Clin Nurs2021; 30(23-24): 3415–3428.
80.
MotamediMBrandenburgCBakhitM, et al. Concerns and potential improvements in end-of-life care from the perspectives of older patients and informal caregivers: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr2021; 21(1): 729
81.
TakahashiZYamakawaMNakanishiM, et al. Defining a good death for people with dementia: a scoping review. Jpn J Nurs Sci2021; 18(2): e12402
82.
BradleySEFrizelleDJohnsonM. Patients’ psychosocial experiences of attending specialist palliative day care: a systematic review. Palliat Med2011; 25(3): 210–228.
83.
MillerEMPorterJEBarbagalloMS. The physical hospital environment and its effects on palliative patients and their families: A qualitative meta-synthesis. HERD2022; 15(1): 268–291.
84.
WakefieldDBaylyJSelmanLE, et al. Patient empowerment, what does it mean for adults in the advanced stages of a life-limiting illness: A systematic review using critical interpretive synthesis. Palliat Med2018; 32(8): 1288–1304.
85.
FosseASchaufelMARuthsS, et al. End-of-life expectations and experiences among nursing home patients and their relatives—A synthesis of qualitative studies. Patient Educ Couns2014; 97(1): 3–9.
86.
AsanoRAbshireMDennison-HimmelfarbC, et al. Barriers and facilitators to a 'good death' in heart failure: an integrative review. Collegian2019; 26(6): 651–665.
87.
BernackiREBlockSD. Communication about serious illness care goals: a review and synthesis of best practices. JAMA Intern Med2014; 174(12): 1994–2003.
88.
CarvajalAHaraldsdottirEKrollT, et al. Barriers and facilitators perceived by registered nurses to providing person-centred care at the end of life. A scoping review. Int Pract Dev J2019; 9(2): 1–22.
89.
GriffithsI. What are the challenges for nurses when providing end-of-life care in intensive care units?Br J Nurs2019; 28(16): 1047–1052.
90.
IvanyEAitkenL. Challenges and facilitators in providing effective end of life care in intensive care units. Nurs Stand2019; 34(6): 44–50.
91.
LakinJRBlockSDBillingsJA, et al. Improving communication about serious illness in primary care: a review. JAMA Intern Med2016; 176(9): 1380–1387.
92.
MomenNHadfieldPKuhnI, et al. Discussing an uncertain future: end-of-life care conversations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. Thorax2012; 67(9): 777–780.
93.
Mondejar-PontMRamon-AribauAGómez-BatisteX. Integrated palliative care definition and constitutive elements: scoping review. J Integr Care2019; 27(4): 285–304.
94.
ReevesCLillieAKBurrowS. End-of-life care for people with dementia in UK care homes. J Community Nurs2019; 33(2): 60–65.
95.
SlortWSchweitzerBPBlankensteinAH, et al. Perceived barriers and facilitators for general practitioner-patient communication in palliative care: a systematic review. Palliat Med2011; 25(6): 613–629.
96.
ThreapletonDEChungRYWongSYS, et al. Care toward the end of life in older populations and its implementation facilitators and barriers: a scoping review. J Am Med Dir Assoc2017; 18(12): 1000–1009. e4.
97.
JobernsL. Nurse opportunities to overcome barriers to palliative care provision for patients with heart failure: an integrative review. Br J Cardiac Nurs2021; 16(10): 1–15.
98.
ParajuliJHupceyJE. A systematic review on barriers to palliative care in oncology. Am J Hosp Palliat Care2021; 38(11): 1361–1377.
99.
WicherCPMeekerMA. What influences African American end-of-life preferences?J Health Care Poor Underserved2012; 23(1): 28–58.
100.
ArantzamendiMBelarAMartínezM. Promoting patient-centred palliative care: a scoping review of the patient dignity question. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care2016; 10(4): 324–329.
101.
AustinCAMohottigeDSudoreRL, et al. Tools to promote shared decision making in serious illness: A systematic review. JAMA Intern Med2015; 175(7): 1213–1221.
102.
BaikDChoHMasterson CreberRM. Examining interventions designed to support shared decision making and subsequent patient outcomes in palliative care: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Hosp Palliat Care2019; 36(1): 76–88.
103.
BarnesSGardinerCGottM, et al. Enhancing Patient-professional communication about end-of-life issues in life-limiting conditions: a critical review of the literature. J Pain Symptom Manag2012; 44(6): 866–879.
104.
BennettFO'Conner-VonS. Communication interventions to improve goal-concordant care of seriously ill patients: an Integrative Review. J Hosp Palliat Nurs2020; 22(1): 40–48.
105.
BrightonLJKoffmanJHawkinsA, et al. A systematic review of end-of-life care communication skills training for generalist palliative care providers: research quality and reporting guidance. J Pain Symptom Manag2017; 54(3): 417–425.
106.
ChungH-OOczkowskiSJWHanveyL, et al. Educational interventions to train healthcare professionals in end-of-life communication: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ2016; 16(1): 131.
107.
Cruz-OliverDMPacheco RuedaAViera-OrtizL, et al. The evidence supporting educational videos for patients and caregivers receiving hospice and palliative care: A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns2020; 103(9): 1677–1691.
108.
GilmourFRiccobonoRHaraldsdottirE. The value of poetry therapy for people in palliative and end of life care. Prog Palliat Care2020; 28(1): 6–13.
109.
HajizadehNUhlerLHermanSW, et al. Is shared decision making for end-of-life decisions associated with better outcomes as compared to other forms of decision making? A systematic literature review. MDM Pol Pract2016; 1(1): 1–12. DOI: 10.1177/2381468316642237
110.
JainACorriveauSQuinnK, et al. Video decision aids to assist with advance care planning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open2015; 5(6): e007491.
111.
KeallRMClaytonJMButowPN. Therapeutic life review in palliative care: a systematic review of quantitative evaluations. J Pain Symptom Manag2015; 49(4): 747–761.
112.
KochovskaSGarciaMVBunnF, et al. Components of palliative care interventions addressing the needs of people with dementia living in long-term care: A systematic review. Palliat Med2020; 34(4): 454–492.
113.
LordLClark-CarterDGroveA. The effectiveness of communication-skills training interventions in end-of-life noncancer care in acute hospital-based services: A systematic review. Palliat Support Care2016; 14(4): 433–444.
114.
MayedaDPWardKT. Methods for overcoming barriers in palliative care for ethnic/racial minorities: a systematic review. Palliat Support Care2019; 17(6): 697–706.
115.
NoordmanJvan VlietLKaunangM, et al. Towards appropriate information provision for and decision-making with patients with limited health literacy in hospital-based palliative care in Western countries: a scoping review into available communication strategies and tools for healthcare providers. BMC Palliat Care2019; 18(1): 37.
116.
OczkowskiSJChungH-OHanveyL, et al. Communication tools for end-of-life decision-making in ambulatory care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One2016; 11(4): e0150671.
117.
RaunkiaerMTimmH. Interventions concerning competence building in community palliative care services–a literature review. Scand J Caring Sci2013; 27(4): 804–819.
118.
SelmanLEBrightonLJHawkinsA, et al. The effect of communication skills training for generalist palliative care providers on patient-reported outcomes and clinician behaviors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain Symptom Manag2017; 54(3): 404–416. e5.
119.
SloanDHHannumSMDeGrootL, et al. Advance care planning shared decision-making tools for non-cancer chronic serious illness: A mixed method systematic review. Am J Hosp Palliat Care2021; 38(12): 1526–1535.
120.
YoongSQGohHSZhangH. Death doulas as supportive companions in end-of-life care: A scoping review. Palliat Med2022; 36(5): 795–809.
121.
BarwiseABalls-BerryJSoleimaniJ, et al. Interventions for end of life decision making for patients with limited English proficiency. J Immigr Minor Health2020; 22(4): 860–872.
122.
RawlingsDTiemanJMiller-LewisL, et al. What role do Death Doulas play in end-of-life care? A systematic review. Health Soc Care Community2019; 27(3): e82–e94.
123.
ChooPYTan-HoGDuttaO, et al. Reciprocal dynamics of dignity in end-of-life care: a multiperspective systematic review of qualitative and mixed methods research. Am J Hosp Palliat Care2020; 37(5): 385–398.
124.
DobrinaRTenzeMPaleseA. An overview of hospice and palliative care nursing models and theories. Int J Palliat Nurs2014; 20(2): 75–81.
125.
LuckettTPhillipsJAgarM, et al. Elements of effective palliative care models: a rapid review. BMC Health Serv Res2014; 14(1): 136.
126.
KmetecSFekonjaZKolaričJČ, et al. Components for providing person-centred palliative healthcare: an umbrella review. Int J Nurs Stud2022; 125: 104111.
127.
RacoMBurdettTHeaslipV. Exploring an integrated palliative care model for older people: an integrative review. J Integr Care2019; 27(2): 111–122.
128.
Alencar AlbuquerqueGde Lima GarciaCda Silva QuirinoG, et al. Access to health services by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons: systematic literature review. BMC Int Health Hum Rights2016; 16(2): 2.
129.
ErsekMSmithDGriffinH, et al. End-of-life care in the time of COVID-19: communication matters more than ever. J Pain Symptom Manag2021; 62(2): 213–222. e2.
130.
StrangPBergströmJMartinssonL, et al. Dying from COVID-19: loneliness, end-of-life discussions, and support for patients and their families in nursing homes and hospitals. A National Register Study. J Pain Symptom Manag2020; 60(4): e2–e13.
131.
BecquéYNvan der GeugtenWvan der HeideA, et al. Dignity reflections based on experiences of end-of-life care during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative inquiry among bereaved relatives in the Netherlands (the CO-LIVE study). Scand J Caring Sci2022; 36(3): 769–781.
132.
Onwuteaka-PhilipsenBDPasmanHRWKorfageIJ, et al. Dying in times of the coronavirus: an online survey among healthcare professionals about end-of-life care for patients dying with and without COVID-19 (the CO-LIVE study). Palliat Med2021; 35(5): 830–842.
133.
KatesJGerolamoAPogorzelska-MaziarzM. The impact of COVID-19 on the hospice and palliative care workforce. Public Health Nurs2021; 38(3): 459–463.
134.
KilanowskiJF. Breadth of the socio-ecological model. J Agromedicine2017; 22(4): 295–297.
135.
ChenYZhangRLouY, et al. Facilitators and barriers to the delivery of palliative care to patients with Parkinson’s disease: a qualitative study of the perceptions and experiences of stakeholders using the socio-ecological model. BMC Health Serv Res2023; 23(1): 215.
136.
HuangY-LYatesPThorbergFA, et al. Application of social ecological model to Taiwanese end-of-life communication and healthcare planning. Collegian2020; 27(5): 477–486.
137.
PaskSPintoCBristoweK, et al. A framework for complexity in palliative care: A qualitative study with patients, family carers and professionals. Palliat Med2018; 32(6): 1078–1090.
138.
MunnZPetersMDJSternC, et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol2018; 18(1): 143.
139.
WaffenschmidtSKnelangenMSiebenW, et al. Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol2019; 19(1): 132.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
