What Do Parents Value Regarding Pediatric Palliative and Hospice Care in the Home Setting?
What Do Parents Value Regarding Pediatric Palliative and Hospice Care in the Home Setting?
复制标题
DOI:
10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.07.024
复制
发表时间:
2021-01
影响因子:
4.7
通讯作者:
Feudtner, Chris
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Boyden, Jackelyn Y.;Ersek, Mary;Deatrick, Janet A.;Widger, Kimberley;LaRagione, Gwenn;Lord, Blyth;Feudtner, Chris
Children with life-shortening serious illnesses and medically-complex care needs are often cared for by their families at home. Little, however, is known about what aspects of pediatric palliative and hospice care in the home setting (PPHC@Home) families value the most. To explore how parents rate and prioritize domains of PPHC@Home as the first phase of a larger study that developed a parent-reported measure of experiences with PPHC@Home. Twenty domains of high-value PPHC@Home, derived from the National Consensus Project’s Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, the literature, and a stakeholder panel, were evaluated. Using a discrete choice experiment, parents provided their ratings of the most and least valued PPHC@Home domains. We also explored potential differences in how subgroups of parents rated the domains. Forty-seven parents participated. Overall, highest-rated domains included Physical aspects of care: Symptom management, Psychological/emotional aspects of care for the child, and Care coordination. Lowest-rated domains included Spiritual and religious aspects of care and Cultural aspects of care. In exploratory analyses, parents who had other children rated the Psychological/emotional aspects of care for the sibling(s) domain significantly higher than parents who did not have other children (P = 0.02). Furthermore, bereaved parents rated the Caregiver support at the end of life domain significantly higher than parents who were currently caring for their child (P = 0.04). No other significant differences in domain ratings were observed. Knowing what parents value most about PPHC@Home provides the foundation for further exploration and conversation about priority areas for resource allocation and care improvement efforts.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子:
2.8
作者:
Gaab, Erin M.;Owens, Glynn R.;MacLeod, Roderick D.
通讯作者:
MacLeod, Roderick D.
DOI:
10.1007/s40271-015-0118-z
发表时间:
2015-10
期刊:
The patient
影响因子:
--
作者:
de Bekker-Grob EW;Donkers B;Jonker MF;Stolk EA
通讯作者:
Stolk EA
影响因子:
5.1
作者:
Baker, Justin N.;Levine, Deena R.;Kane, Javier R.
通讯作者:
Kane, Javier R.
影响因子:
8
作者:
Alexander, J;Cartwright, JD;Tilton, AH
通讯作者:
Tilton, AH
影响因子:
8
作者:
Feudtner, Chris;Kang, Tammy I.;Wolfe, Joanne
通讯作者:
Wolfe, Joanne