Dataset Information

How compassionate communities are implemented and evaluated in practice: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Compassionate communities are rooted in a health promotion approach to palliative care, aiming to support solidarity among community members at the end of life. Hundreds of compassionate communities have been developed internationally in recent years. However, it remains unknown how their implementation on the ground aligns with core strategies of health promotion. The aim of this review is to describe the practical implementation and evaluation of compassionate communities.

Methods

We undertook a scoping review of the empirical peer-reviewed literature on compassionate communities. Bibliographic searches in five databases were developed with information specialists. We included studies in English describing health promotion activities applied to end-of-life and palliative care. Qualitative analysis used inductive and deductive strategies based on existing frameworks for categorization of health promotion activities, barriers and facilitators for implementation and evaluation measures. A participatory research approach with community partners was used to design the review and interpret its findings.

Results

Sixty-three articles were included for analysis. 74.6% were published after 2011. Health services organizations and providers are most often engaged as compassionate community leaders, with community members mainly engaged as target users. Adaptation to local culture and social context is the most frequently reported barrier for implementation, with support and external factors mostly reported as facilitators. Early stages of compassionate community development are rarely reported in the literature (stakeholder mobilization, needs assessment, priority-setting). Health promotion strategies tend to focus on the development of personal skills, mainly through the use of education and awareness programs. Few activities focused on strengthening community action and building healthy public policies. Evaluation was reported in 30% of articles, 88% of evaluation being analyzed at the individual level, as opposed to community processes and outcomes.

Conclusions

The empirical literature on compassionate communities demonstrates a wide variety of health promotion practices. Much international experience has been developed in education and awareness programs on death and dying. Health promotion strategies based on community strengthening and policies need to be consolidated. Future research should pay attention to community-led initiatives and evaluations that may not be currently reported in the peer-review literature.

SUBMITTER: Dumont K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9297657 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA compassionate, respectful, and caring (CRC) health professional is very important for human-centered care, serving clients ethically and with respect, adhering to the professional oath, and serving as a model for young professionals. As countries try to achieve universal health coverage (UHC), quality delivery of health services is crucial. CRC health care is an initiative around the need to provide quality care services to clients and patients. However, there is an evidence gap on the status of CRC health care service delivery.ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to map global evidence on the status of CRC health service delivery practice.MethodsAn exhaustive literature review and Delphi technique were used to answer the 2 research questions: "What is the current status of CRC health care practices among health workers?" and "Is it possible for health professionals, health managers, administrators, and policy makers to incorporate it into their activity while designing strategies that could improve the humanistic and holistic approach to health care provision?" The studies were searched from the year 2014 to September 2020 using electronic databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Hinari, and the World Health Organization (WHO) library. Additionally, grey literature such as Google, Google Scholar, and WorldWideScience were scrutinized. Studies that applied any study design and data collection and analysis methods related to CRC care were included. Two authors extracted the data and compared the results. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or the third reviewer made the decision. Findings from the existing literature were presented using thematic analysis.ResultsA total of 1193 potentially relevant studies were generated from the initial search, and 20 studies were included in the final review. From this review, we identified 5 thematic areas: the status of CRC implementation, facilitators for CRC health care service delivery, barriers to CRC health care delivery, disrespectful and abusive care encountered by patients, and perspectives on CRC. The findings of this review indicated that improving the mechanisms for monitoring health facilities, improving accountability, and becoming aware of the consequences of maltreatment within facilities are critical steps to improving health care delivery practices.ConclusionsThis scoping review identified that there is limited CRC service provision. Lack of training, patient flow volume, and bed shortages were found to be the main contributors of CRC health care delivery. Therefore, the health care system should consider the components of CRC in health care delivery during in-service training, pre-service training, monitoring and evaluation, community engagement, workload division, and performance appraisal.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Compassion is a vital component to the achievement of positive health outcomes, particularly in mental health care. The rise of digital technologies may influence the delivery of compassionate care, and thus this relationship between compassion and digital health care needs to be better understood. OBJECTIVE:This scoping review aimed to identify existing digital technologies being used by patients and health professionals in the delivery of mental health care, understand how digital technologies are being used in the delivery of compassionate mental health care, and determine the facilitators of and barriers to digital technology use among patients and health professionals in the delivery of compassionate mental health care. METHODS:We conducted this scoping review through a search of Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), MEDLINE In-Process and EPub Ahead of Print, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for articles published from 1990 to 2019. RESULTS:Of the 4472 articles screened, 37 articles were included for data extraction. Telemedicine was the most widely used technology by mental health professionals. Digital technologies were described as facilitating compassionate care and were classified using a conceptual model to identify each digital intersection with compassionate care. Facilitators of and barriers to providing compassionate care through digital technology were identified, including increased safety for providers, health care professional perceptions and abilities, and the use of picture-in-picture feedback to evaluate social cues. CONCLUSIONS:Implementing digital technology into mental health care can improve the current delivery of compassionate care and create novel ways to provide compassion. However, as this is a new area of study, mental health professionals and organizations alike should be mindful that compassionate human-centered care is maintained in the delivery of digital health care. Future research could develop tools to facilitate and evaluate the enactment of compassion within digital health care.

Project description:BackgroundAn essential value in mental health care is compassion: awareness of suffering, tolerating difficult feelings in the face of suffering, and acting or being motivated to alleviate suffering. Currently, technologies for mental health care are on the rise and could offer several advantages, such as more options for self-management by clients and more accessible and economically viable care. However, digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) have not been widely implemented in daily practice. Developing and evaluating DMHIs around important mental health care values, such as compassion, could be key for a better integration of technology in the mental health care context.ObjectiveThis systematic scoping review explored the literature for previous instances where technology for mental health care has been linked to compassion or empathy to investigate how DMHIs can support compassion in mental health care.MethodsSearches were conducted in the PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, and screening by 2 reviewers resulted in 33 included articles. From these articles, we extracted the following data: technology types, goals, target groups, and roles of the technologies in the intervention; study designs; outcome measures; and the extent to which the technologies met a 5-step proposed definition of compassion.ResultsWe found 3 main ways in which technology can contribute to compassion in mental health care: by showing compassion to people, by enhancing self-compassion in people, or by facilitating compassion between people. However, none of the included technologies met all 5 elements of compassion nor were they evaluated in terms of compassion.ConclusionsWe discuss the potential of compassionate technology, its challenges, and the need to evaluate technology for mental health care on compassion. Our findings could contribute to the development of compassionate technology, in which elements of compassion are explicitly embedded in its design, use, and evaluation.

Project description:BackgroundCompassionate use is a system that provides patients with expedited access to drugs which has not yet been approved, but currently in clinical trials. The investigational drugs have been authorized for compassionate use in cases involving patients suffered from life-threatening diseases and with no alternative treatments. For instance, patients afflicted with highly heterogeneous rare diseases are eligible for treatment assistance through the compassionate use program. This study aims to investigate the characteristics of compassionate use in the context of rare diseases, evaluate the efficacy and safety of compassionate use for rare diseases, and analyze the marketing approval of investigational drugs.MethodsThe case reports/case series of compassionate use were collected by conducting searches on Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI and SinoMed, spanning from January 1991 to December 2022. Subsequently, two independent reviewers evaluated these reports. Case reports/case series that met the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria were enrolled. Information extracted from these reports and series included patients' basic information, the investigational drug's name, its indication, adverse events, treatment outcomes, and other relevant data.ResultsA total of forty-six studies were included, encompassing 2079 patients with an average age of 38.1 years. Thirty-nine different drugs were involved in 46 studies. Furthermore, neoplasms emerged as the most common therapeutic area for compassionate use in rare disease management (23/46, 50.0%). Regarding the treatment efficacy, four studies reported successful disease resolution, while 35 studies observed symptom improvement among patients. Conversely, four studies documented no significant effects on patients' diseases. Moreover, one study reported worsened results following compassionate use, while the efficacy was not described in 2 studies. Adverse events were reported in 31 studies (67.4%) because of the compassionate use, while no adverse events occurred in 13 studies (28.3%). In other 2 studies, there was no description about whether treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were happened. 136 patients (6.5%) had Grade 5 adverse events (death), of which 19 deaths (0.9%) were considered to be related to compassionate use. Furthermore, the investigational drugs in 33 studies (33/46, 71.7%) received new drug approval at the end of January 31, 2023.The time lag from the start of the compassionate use to the formal approval of the investigational drug was 790.5 (IQR 359-2199.3) days. We found that in 11 studies, encompassing 9 different drugs, some compassionate use indications had not received regulatory authorities at the end of January 31, 2023.ConclusionThe current status of compassionate use for rare diseases was clarified systematically in this study. Compassionate use of investigational drug is a significant treatment option for rare disease. In general, compassionate use appears to demonstrate favorable efficacy in the context of rare diseases, with a significant proportion of compassionate use drugs subsequently receiving marketing approval. However, the safety of drugs for compassionate use cannot be fully evaluated due to the safety data were not covered in some enrolled studies. Therefore, the establishment of an adverse event reporting system specific to compassionate use is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundTechnologies have been extensively implemented to provide health care services for all types of clinical conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. While several reviews have been conducted regarding technologies used during the COVID-19 pandemic, they were limited by focusing either on a specific technology (or features) or proposed rather than implemented technologies.ObjectiveThis review aims to provide an overview of technologies, as reported in the literature, implemented during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) Extension for Scoping Reviews. Studies were retrieved by searching 8 electronic databases, checking the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews (backward reference list checking), and checking studies that cited included studies (forward reference list checking). The search terms were chosen based on the target intervention (ie, technologies) and the target disease (ie, COVID-19). We included English publications that focused on technologies or digital tools implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide health-related services regardless of target health condition, user, or setting. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of studies and extracted data from eligible papers. We used a narrative approach to synthesize extracted data.ResultsOf 7374 retrieved papers, 126 were deemed eligible. Telemedicine was the most common type of technology (107/126, 84.9%) implemented in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the most common mode of telemedicine was synchronous (100/108, 92.6%). The most common purpose of the technologies was providing consultation (75/126, 59.5%), followed by following up with patients (45/126, 35.7%), and monitoring their health status (22/126, 17.4%). Zoom (22/126, 17.5%) and WhatsApp (12/126, 9.5%) were the most commonly used videoconferencing and social media platforms, respectively. Both health care professionals and health consumers were the most common target users (103/126, 81.7%). The health condition most frequently targeted was COVID-19 (38/126, 30.2%), followed by any physical health conditions (21/126, 16.7%), and mental health conditions (13/126, 10.3%). Technologies were web-based in 84.1% of the studies (106/126). Technologies could be used through 11 modes, and the most common were mobile apps (86/126, 68.3%), desktop apps (73/126, 57.9%), telephone calls (49/126, 38.9%), and websites (45/126, 35.7%).ConclusionsTechnologies played a crucial role in mitigating the challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. We did not find papers describing the implementation of other technologies (eg, contact-tracing apps, drones, blockchain) during the first wave. Furthermore, technologies in this review were used for other purposes (eg, drugs and vaccines discovery, social distancing, and immunity passport). Future research on studies on these technologies and purposes is recommended, and further reviews are required to investigate technologies implemented in subsequent waves of the pandemic.

Project description:IntroductionEarly identification of patients who may suffer from unexpected adverse events (eg, sepsis, sudden cardiac arrest) gives bedside staff valuable lead time to care for these patients appropriately. Consequently, many machine learning algorithms have been developed to predict adverse events. However, little research focuses on how these systems are implemented and how system design impacts clinicians' decisions or patient outcomes. This protocol outlines the steps to review the designs of these tools.Methods and analysisWe will use scoping review methods to explore how tools that leverage machine learning algorithms in predicting adverse events are designed to integrate into clinical practice. We will explore the types of user interfaces deployed, what information is displayed, and how clinical workflows are supported. Electronic sources include Medline, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Library (including CENTRAL), and IEEE Xplore from 1 January 2009 to present. We will only review primary research articles that report findings from the implementation of patient deterioration surveillance tools for hospital clinicians. The articles must also include a description of the tool's user interface. Since our primary focus is on how the user interacts with automated tools driven by machine learning algorithms, electronic tools that do not extract data from clinical data documentation or recording systems such as an EHR or patient monitor, or otherwise require manual entry, will be excluded. Similarly, tools that do not synthesise information from more than one data variable will also be excluded. This review will be limited to English-language articles. Two reviewers will review the articles and extract the data. Findings from both researchers will be compared with minimise bias. The results will be quantified, synthesised and presented using appropriate formats.Ethics and disseminationEthics review is not required for this scoping review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.

Project description:IntroductionAs digital technologies become an integral part of mental health care delivery, concerns have risen regarding how this technology may detract from health professionals' ability to provide compassionate care. To maintain and improve the quality of care for people with mental illness, there is a need to understand how to effectively incorporate technologies into the delivery of compassionate mental health care. The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) identify the digital technologies currently being used among patients and health professionals in the delivery of mental health care; (2) determine how these digital technologies are being used in the context of the delivery of compassionate care and (3) uncover the barriers to, and facilitators of, digital technology-driven delivery of compassionate mental health care.Methods and analysisSearches were conducted of five databases, consisting of relevant articles published in English between 1990 and 2019. Identified articles will be independently screened for eligibility by two reviewers, first at a title and abstract stage, and then at a full-text level. Data will be extracted and compiled from eligible articles into a data extraction chart. Information collected will include a basic overview of the publication including the article title, authors, year of publication, country of origin, research design and research question addressed. On completion of data synthesis, the authors will conduct a consultation phase with relevant experts in the field.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this scoping review. With regards to the dissemination plan, principles identified from the relevant articles may be presented at conferences and an article will be published in an academic journal with study results. The authors also intend to engage interested mental health professionals, health professional educators and patients in a discussion about the study findings and implications for the future.