Knowledge, attitudes, and representations of caregivers of individuals with major neurocognitive disorders regarding palliative and end-of-life care: a narrative literature review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Caregivers of individuals with major neurocognitive disorders often bear the responsibility of participating in decisions related to the provision of palliative care for their loved ones due to the loss of capacity to consent as the disease progresses. This role is highly significant, as caregivers can influence both the quality of life and life expectancy of those they care for. Since they make decisions based on their knowledge, skills, preferences, and values, It is essential to develop a more comprehensive understanding of theses concepts regarding palliative and end-of-life care (PEoLC). OBJECTIVES: Provide an overview of the existing scientific data on caregiver's knowledge, attitudes and representations of palliative and end-of-life care and to analyze it in order to gain a deeper comprehension of the positioning of caregivers on the subject. METHODS: A narrative literature review was conducted to address the research question: "What are the knowledge, attitudes, and representations of caregivers of individuals with major neurocognitive disorders regarding palliative and end-of-life care?" Searches in PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO targeted articles published between 2000 and 2023 addressing the knowledge, attitudes, or representations of caregivers of individuals with major neurocognitive disorders on any of the PEoLC topics. RESULTS: Of the 900 articles found, 25 were included in the analysis. In addition to the palliative care approach, end-of-life practices founded included advance care planning, hospital transfer, artificial nutrition and hydration, treatment withdrawal, palliative sedation, and medically assisted dying. The analysis revealed a disparity in the number of studies on various PEoLC practices, with more data available on advance care planning than other practices. Caregivers had a general understanding of the palliative care approach but limited knowledge of specific PEoLC practices. While there was some consensus on representations of the palliative care approach, ambivalent attitudes and representations were observed regarding PEoLC practices. CONCLUSION: With the evolution of palliative care services and the increasing role and responsibility of caregivers in decision-making, a deeper understanding of their knowledge, attitudes, and representations of PEoLC is essential to better identify their support and informational needs. Further research is needed to enable healthcare professionals to provide targeted support and education to caregivers as patient conditions evolve, thereby improving overall care quality.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».