Experiences and perspectives of healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers toward the serious illness conversation guide : protocol for a qualitative meta-synthesis

Article indépendant

YANG, Liu | ZHU, Nanxi | WANG, Xianlin | TAN, Jin | CHEN, Liuliu | SU, Cui | DONG, Tiaoxia | LONG, Bingjie | QIU, Yeyin | DENG, Renli

INTRODUCTION: Exploring the experiences and perspectives of healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers toward serious illness conversations based on the Serious Illness Care Program is vital for improving communication with patients who are seriously ill, as has been shown in previous studies. However, few studies have carried out a systematic review to examine common themes, strengthen conclusions and identify gaps in the literature, the findings of which could help steer further research, policies and practice to improve more timely and person-centred conversations about the values and priorities of patients with serious illnesses. The objective of this qualitative meta-synthesis is to explore how healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers described their own experiences of the processes of serious illness communication through a secondary analysis of published qualitative data. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Meta-aggregation will be used to conduct a systematic review of qualitative studies. We conducted an initial search on 10 October 2023; papers published in English will be searched using electronic databases, including PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Embase, Ovid and CINAHL. Studies that satisfy the eligibility criteria will be evaluated for methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. The meta-aggregative review will consist of the following: (1) extraction of findings of all included studies; (2) categorisation of the findings, with at least two findings per category; and (3) synthesis of one or more findings from at least two categories. Study eligibility screening, data extraction, analysis and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research assessments will be undertaken independently by two authors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Secondary data analysis of published literature does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented in conference papers and elsewhere. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022330859.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073171

Voir la revue «BMJ Open, 13»

Autres numéros de la revue «BMJ Open»

• Description
• Sujet/Public
• Outil
• Outil d'anticipation
• Gestion