Search

Additional file 1: Supplementary material file 1. Extra information observational study (WP2) HORIZON2020 Palliative sedation.

Additional file 3: Supplementary Table S2. Interview guide for Health care professionals.

Additional file 2: Supplementary Table S1. Interview guide for bereaved relatives of the patient.

In recent years, digitalization of traditional manual processes with a tendency towards a sensorized world and person-generated information streams has led to a massive availability and exponential generation of heterogeneous data in most areas of life. This has been facilitated by the cost reduction and capability improvements of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) for storage, processing and transmission.

The aim of this study was to identify which factors are associated with anatomic and symptomatic prolapse recurrence in the anterior compartment 1 year after traditional anterior vaginal repair. Our study hypothesis was that major defects in pelvic floor support structures before surgery are associated with higher recurrence rates. This was a prospective multicenter study including women with symptomatic anterior compartment prolapse who underwent primary vaginal surgery. Prolapse examination was performed using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system, prolapse symptoms were described using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory short form (PFDI-20), and levator ani avulsion and hiatal area were identified by translabial 3D ultrasonography. During the inclusion period, 455 patients were recruited and 442 (97.1%) attended the 1-year follow-up. In three cases, ultrasound data were not available, and the remaining 439 formed the study group. Anatomic and symptomatic recurrence rates were 45.1% and 6.8%, respectively. Levator avulsion increased the risk of anatomic (OR: 1.96) and symptomatic (OR: 2.60) recurrence; abnormal distensibility of the levator hiatal area increased the risk of anatomic (OR: 2.51) and symptomatic (OR: 2.43) recurrence; advanced prolapse increased the risk of anatomic recurrence: POP-Q stage 3 (OR: 2.34) and POP-Q stage 4 (OR: 5.47). Major defects in pelvic floor support structures before surgery are associated with higher recurrence rates 1 year after native tissue vaginal repair. Advanced stage of prolapse increases the risk of anatomic recurrence, while levator avulsion and abnormal distensibility of the levator hiatus area increase the risk of both anatomic and symptomatic recurrence.

Simple Summary The involvement of patients in decision making about their healthcare plans is being emphasized, but little is known how the decision making on palliative sedation is conducted and who are involved in. The aim of this study is to understand how decisions about palliative sedation are taken. The results may help to understand the reality of this decision-making considering when and by whom the decision-making process is initiated, patient involvement, family involvement and healthcare involvement. This may contribute to identifying aspects that should be improved. Abstract Background. The involvement of patients in decision making about their healthcare plans is being emphasized. In the context of palliative sedation, it is unclear how these decisions are made and who are involved in. The aim of the study is to understand how this decision-making is taken. Method. Information from a systematic review on clinical aspects of palliative sedation prospective studies were included. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched (January 2014–December 2019). Data extraction and analysis regarded: (a) When and by whom the decision-making process is initiated; (b) patient involvement; (c) family involvement and (d) healthcare involvement. Results. Data about decision making were reported in 8/10 included articles. Palliative sedation was reported in 1137 patients (only 16 of them were non-cancer). Palliative sedation was introduced by the palliative care team during the disease process, at admission, or when patients experienced refractory symptoms. Only two studies explicitly mentioned the involvement of patients in decision making. Co-decision between families and the regular health care professionals was usual, and the health care professionals involved had been working in palliative care services. Conclusion. Patient participation in decision making appeared to be compromised by limited physical or cognitive capacity and family participation is described. The possibility of palliative sedation should be discussed earlier in the disease process.

Background. The involvement of patients in decision making about their healthcare plans is being emphasized. In the context of palliative sedation, it is unclear how these decisions are made and who are involved in. The aim of the study is to understand how this decision-making is taken. Method. Information from a systematic review on clinical aspects of palliative sedation prospective studies were included. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched (January 2014–December 2019). Data extraction and analysis regarded: (a) When and by whom the decision-making process is initiated; (b) patient involvement; (c) family involvement and (d) healthcare involvement. Results. Data about decision making were reported in 8/10 included articles. Palliative sedation was reported in 1137 patients (only 16 of them were non-cancer). Palliative sedation was introduced by the palliative care team during the disease process, at admission, or when patients experienced refractory symptoms. Only two studies explicitly mentioned the involvement of patients in decision making. Co-decision between families and the regular health care professionals was usual, and the health care professionals involved had been working in palliative care services. Conclusion. Patient participation in decision making appeared to be compromised by limited physical or cognitive capacity and family participation is described. The possibility of palliative sedation should be discussed earlier in the disease process.

Background: Coping is essential to manage palliative care professionals’ challenges. The focus has been on the effects of coping mechanism; however, little is known about coping itself in palliative care. Aim: To synthesise evidence of coping strategies in palliative care professionals, and how different strategies play roles over time. Design: Systematically conducted integrative review. Data sources: PubMed; CINAHL; Medline; PsycINFO and B-ON were searched (1996–2021) combining ‘coping’ AND ‘palliative care’. A predefined data extraction sheet was developed to report data. Two researchers performed constant comparative analysis using Nvivo®. Results: Thirty-one studies were included. Four main strategies with recurrent reference to time were found: (a) proactive coping, involving activities to achieve self-confidence and control situations and emotions; (b) self-care based coping, including self-protection and self-awareness activities, with behavioural disconnection; (c) self-transformation coping, involving activities to accept limits; and (d) encountering deep professional meaning, is a coping mechanism based on meaning, frequently considering the deepest meaning of work. The dynamic and influencing factors were training, team interaction, professional motivation and family. They were usually protective factors, though sometimes they represented risk factors. The emotional burden associated with healthcare and systemic stressors were always risk factors. An explanatory model describes a complex and dynamic process, in which everyday strategies and more introspective strategies are combined. Conclusions: The model showed a process of adaptation and learning to persevere in palliative care. It changes over time under factors and strategies, and evolves in a personal and professional transformation, parallel to the working life. It would be worth assessing coping in healthcare professionals who chose to leave palliative care and to investigate the reasons they did so and their coping mechanisms.

Motivation\ud In the age of big data, the amount of scientific information available online dwarfs the ability of current tools to support researchers in locating and securing access to the necessary materials. Well-structured open data and the smart systems that make the appropriate use of it are invaluable and can help health researchers and professionals to find the appropriate information by, e.g., configuring the monitoring of information or refining a specific query on a disease.\ud \ud Methods\ud We present an automated text classifier approach based on the MEDLINE/MeSH thesaurus, trained on the manual annotation of more than 26 million expert-annotated scientific abstracts. The classifier was developed tailor-fit to the public health and health research domain experts, in the light of their specific challenges and needs. We have applied the proposed methodology on three specific health domains: the Coronavirus, Mental Health and Diabetes, considering the pertinence of the first, and the known relations with the other two health topics.\ud \ud Results\ud A classifier is trained on the MEDLINE dataset that can automatically annotate text, such as scientific articles, news articles or medical reports with relevant concepts from the MeSH thesaurus.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud The proposed text classifier shows promising results in the evaluation of health-related news. The application of the developed classifier enables the exploration of news and extraction of health-related insights, based on the MeSH thesaurus, through a similar workflow as in the usage of PubMed, with which most health researchers are familiar.

ObjectivesThe wish to die (WTD) is a complex experience sometimes accompanied by intention to hasten death. The aim of this study is to identify the predictive factors for WTD and hastening death intention (HDI) in Spanish patients with advanced illness.MethodsThis is a subanalysis of a larger cross-sectional study conducted on patients experiencing advanced illness (N=201). Sociodemographic data and data related to symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Revised), depressive and anxious symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), demoralisation (Spanish version of the Demoralisation Scale), perceived loss of dignity (Patient Dignity Inventory) and WTD (Assessing Frequency and Extent of Desire to Die) were collected. The analysis used univariate and multivariate logistic regression.ResultsThe prevalence of WTD in the sample was 18%, with 8 out of 36 patients reporting HDI. The independent factors predictive of WTD were (1) knowledge of approximate prognosis (OR=4.78; 95% CI 1.20 to 10.8; p=0.001); (2) symptom burden (OR=1.05; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.09; p=0.038); and (3) the Demoralisation Scale subsection ‘lack of meaning and purpose in life’ (OR=1.61; 95% CI 1.30 to 1.99; p=0.000). An independent predictive factor for HDI was the Demoralisation Scale subsection ‘patients’ distress and coping abilities’ (OR=1.47; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.08; p=0.028), while having religious beliefs was a protective factor (OR=0.13; 95% CI0.17 to 0.97; p=0.047).ConclusionsDemoralisation was found to be the only common triggering factor for WTD and HDI, although experiences share certain features. Identification of the predictive factors for WTD and HDI may contribute to their prevention and management.

CONTEXT: Near the end of life when patients experience refractory symptoms, palliative sedation may be considered as a last treatment. Clinical guidelines have been developed, but they are mainly based on expert opinion or retrospective chart reviews. Therefore, evidence for the clinical aspects of palliative sedation is needed. OBJECTIVES: To explore clinical aspects of palliative sedation in recent prospective studies. METHODS: Systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered at PROSPERO. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched (January 2014-December 2019), combining sedation, palliative care, and prospective. Article quality was assessed. RESULTS: Ten prospective articles were included, involving predominantly patients with cancer. Most frequently reported refractory symptoms were delirium (41%-83%), pain (25%-65%), and dyspnea (16%-59%). In some articles, psychological and existential distress were mentioned (16%-59%). Only a few articles specified the tools used to assess symptoms. Level of sedation assessment tools were the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, Ramsay Sedation Scale, Glasgow Coma Scale, and Bispectral Index monitoring. The palliative sedation practice shows an underlying need for proportionality in relation to symptom intensity. Midazolam was the main sedative used. Other reported medications were phenobarbital, promethazine, and anesthetic medication-propofol. The only study that reported level of patient's discomfort as a palliative sedation outcome showed a decrease in patient discomfort. CONCLUSION: Assessment of refractory symptoms should include physical evaluation with standardized tools applied and interviews for psychological and existential evaluation by expert clinicians working in teams. Future research needs to evaluate the effectiveness of palliative sedation for refractory symptom relief. ispartof: JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT vol:61 issue:4 pages:831-+ ispartof: location:United States status: published