Search

Background: In cost-effectiveness analyses in healthcare, Quality-Adjusted Life Years are often used as outcome measure of effectiveness. However, there is an ongoing debate concerning the appropriateness of its use for decision-making in palliative care. Aim: To systematically map pros and cons of using the Quality-Adjusted Life Year to inform decisions on resource allocation among palliative care interventions, as brought forward in the debate, and to discuss the Quality-Adjusted Life Year's value for palliative care. Design: The integrative review method of Whittemore and Knafl was followed. Theoretical arguments and empirical findings were mapped. Data sources: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL, in which MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms were Palliative Care, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Quality of Life, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years. Findings: Three themes regarding the pros and cons were identified: (1) restrictions in life years gained, (2) conceptualization of quality of life and its measurement, including suggestions to adapt this, and (3) valuation and additivity of time, referring to changing valuation of time. The debate is recognized in empirical studies, but alternatives not yet applied. Conclusion: The Quality-Adjusted Life Year might be more valuable for palliative care if specific issues are taken into account. Despite restrictions in life years gained, Quality-Adjusted Life Years can be achieved in palliative care. However, in measuring quality of life, we recommend to--in addition to the EQ-5D--make use of quality of life or capability instruments specifically for palliative care. Also, we suggest exploring the possibility of integrating valuation of time in a non-linear way in the Quality-Adjusted Life Year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: General practitioners (GPs) play a crucial part in palliative care. The quality of care can be improved by investigating and addressing barriers perceived by GPs in daily practice. The aim of this study was to investigate GPs' task perception and barriers involved in palliative care. Methods: Qualitative focus group study. We gathered together a group of GPs representing a broad range of experience in palliative care. Content analysis was performed to derive a comprehensive view of tasks and barriers in daily palliative care. Results: GPs described their palliative care tasks as satisfactory and varied, but burdensome. Palliative care tasks included somatic and psychosocial care. Opinions differed with respect to whether the coordination of care belonged to the primary GP tasks. Barriers were classified according to three levels: (1) personal: barriers related to knowledge, skills, emotions; (2) relational: barriers concerning communication and collaboration; (3) organizational: barriers related to the organization of care and compartmentalization in healthcare. Conclusions: This study revealed a complex web of tasks and barriers. It may be possible to trace back a problem (lack of knowledge, for example) on the personal level to an isolated knowledge gap, but the problem may well have originated from communication or compartmentalization problems. To maintain GPs' feeling of being at ease with palliative care requires helping them acquire the appropriate balance between technical and organizational interventions and a compassionate orientation to their terminally ill patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]