Dataset Information

Ethical challenges in palliative sedation of adults: protocol for a systematic review of current clinical practice guidelines.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

This study aims to identify the full spectrum of ethical challenges of all forms of palliative sedation for adults as presented in current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to determine whether CPGs specify ethical challenges of this therapy for patients with cancer and non-cancer and, if so, how exactly they do this. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have yet investigated this topic. The purpose is purely descriptive; our aim is not to make any kind of normative judgements on these challenges. Nor is our aim to assess the quality of the CPGs.

Methods and analysis

We will perform a systematic review of CPGs on palliative sedation for adults via five electronic databases, grey literature search tools, citation tracking and contact with palliative care experts. Current CPGs accredited by an international, national or regional authority, published in English, German, French, Italian or Polish, from 2000 to the date of the search, will be subjected to content analysis at the textual, linguistic and thematic levels.

Ethics and dissemination

This is a protocol for a systematic review and no human will be involved in this research. Therefore, ethics approval and consent to participate are not applicable to this context. This study protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for Protocols criteria and registered on PROSPERO. Moreover, the integral version of this study protocol is published as a preprint on Research Square. The results of this study will be actively disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and books, international, national and local conference presentations, social media and media in general.

SUBMITTER: Tomczyk M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9252196 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEthical issues arise daily in the delivery of palliative care. Despite much (largely theoretical) literature, evidence from specialist palliative care practitioners about day-to-day ethical challenges has not previously been synthesised. This evidence is crucial to inform education and adequately support staff.AimTo synthesise the evidence regarding the ethical challenges which specialist palliative care practitioners encounter during clinical practice.DesignSystematic review with narrative synthesis (PROSPERO registration CRD42018105365). Quality was dual-assessed using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Tabulation, textural description, concept mapping and thematic synthesis were used to develop and present the narrative.Data sourcesSeven databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher's Index, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS, Web of Science and CINAHL) were searched from inception to December 2019 without language limits. Eligible papers reported original research using inductive methods to describe practitioner-reported ethical challenges.ResultsA total of 8074 records were screened. Thirteen studies from nine countries were included. Challenges were organised into six themes: application of ethical principles; delivering clinical care; working with families; engaging with institutional structures and values; navigating societal values and expectations; philosophy of palliative care. Challenges related to specific scenarios/contexts rather than the application of general ethical principles, and occurred at all levels (bedside, institution, society, policy).ConclusionPalliative care practitioners encounter a broad range of contextual ethical challenges, many of which are not represented in palliative care ethics training resources, for example, navigating institutional policies, resource allocation and inter-professional conflict. Findings have implications for supporting ethical practice and training practitioners. The lack of low- and middle- income country data needs addressing.

Project description:BackgroundBiomarker research is gaining increasing attention focusing on the preclinical stages of the disease. Such interest requires special attention for communication and disclosure in clinical contexts. Many countries give dementia a high health policy priority by developing national strategies and by improving guidelines addressing disclosure of a diagnosis; however, risk communication is often neglected.Main textThis paper aims to identify the challenges of disclosure in the context of dementia prediction and to find out whether existing clinical guidelines sufficiently address the issues of disclosing a dementia diagnosis and of disclosing the risk of developing dementia in asymptomatic and MCI stage. We will examine clinical guidelines and recommendations of three countries (USA, Canada and Germany) regarding predictive testing and diagnostic disclosure in dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) to show their potentials and limits. This will provide a background to address ethical implications of predictive information and to identify ways how to proceed further. We will start by examining the guidelines and recommendations by focusing on what there is already and what is missing regarding the challenges of disclosing dementia prediction and MCI. Then, we will highlight the novel ethical issues generated by the shift to identify preclinical stages of the disease by biomarkers. We will argue for the need to develop guidelines for disclosing a risk status, which requires different considerations then disclosing a diagnosis of dementia. Finally, we will make some suggestions on how to address the gap and challenges raised by referring to German Stakeholder Conference, which presents us a good starting point to the applicability of involving stakeholders.ConclusionsThis paper underlines the need to develop empirically based guidelines that address the ethical and social strategies for risk communication of dementia prediction by genetic as well as non-genetic biomarkers. According to our analysis, the guidelines do not address the new developments sufficiently. International efforts should aim for specific guidelines on counseling, communicating risk and disclosing results. We argue that guidelines on (risk) disclosure should be developed by involving various stakeholders and should be informed by socio-empirical studies involving laypersons' needs and wishes regarding risk communication.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The aims of this study were to investigate whether there is a gap between evidence of traditional medicine (TM) interventions in East-Asian countries from the current Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) and evidence from current systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR-MAs) and to analyze the impact of this gap on present CPGs. METHODS:We examined 5 representative TM interventions in the health care systems of East-Asian countries. We searched seven relevant databases for CPGs to identify whether core CPGs included evidence of TM interventions, and we searched 11 databases for SR-MAs to re-evaluate current evidence on TM interventions. We then compared the gap between the evidence from CPGs and SR-MAs. RESULTS:Thirteen CPGs and 22 SR-MAs met our inclusion criteria. Of the 13 CPGs, 7 CPGs (54%) mentioned TM interventions, and all were for acupuncture (only one was for both acupuncture and acupressure). However, the CPGs did not recommend acupuncture (or acupressure). Of 22 SR-MAs, 16 were for acupuncture, 5 for manual therapy, 1 for cupping, and none for moxibustion and herbal medicine. Comparing the evidence from CPGs and SR-MAs, an underestimation or omission of evidence for acupuncture, cupping, and manual therapy in current CPGs was detected. Thus, applying the results from the SR-MAs, we moderately recommend acupuncture for chronic LBP, but we inconclusively recommend acupuncture for (sub)acute LBP due to the limited current evidence. Furthermore, we weakly recommend cupping and manual therapy for both (sub)acute and chronic LBP. We cannot provide recommendations for moxibustion and herbal medicine due to a lack of evidence. CONCLUSIONS:The current CPGs did not fully reflect the evidence for TM interventions. As relevant studies such as SR-MAs are conducted and evidence increases, the current evidence on acupuncture, cupping, and manual therapy should be rigorously considered in the process of developing or updating the CPG system.