Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20540757›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2010

Planning training seminars in palliative care: a cross-sectional survey on the preferences of general practitioners and nurses in Austria.

Gerhild Becker, Felix Momm, Peter Deibert, Carola Xander, Annemarie Gigl, Brigitte Wagner, Johann Baumgartner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Gerhild BeckerDepartment of Internal Medicine II, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. gerhild.becker@uniklinik-freiburg.de
Felix Momm
Peter Deibert
Carola Xander
Annemarie Gigl
Brigitte Wagner
Johann Baumgartner

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraining in palliative care is frequently requested by health care professionals. However, little is known in detail about the subject matters and the educational preferences of physicians and staff or assistant nurses in this field.

methodsAll 897 registered GPs and all 933 registered home care nurses in the district of Steiermark/Austria were sent postal questionnaires.

resultsResults from 546 (30%) respondents revealed that GPs prefer evening courses and weekend seminars, whereas staff and assistant nurses prefer one-day courses. Multidisciplinary sessions are preferred by almost 80% of all professional groups. GPs preferred multi disciplinary groups most frequently when addressing psychosocial needs (88.8%) and ethical questions (85.8%). Staff and assistant nurses preferred multidisciplinary groups most frequently in the area of pain management (88%) and opted for multi disciplinary learning to a significantly higher extent than GPs (69%; p < 0.01). Those topics were ranked first which are not only deepening, but supplementing the professional training. On average, GPs were willing to spend a maximum amount of euro 400 per year for training seminars in palliative care, whereas nurses would spend approximately euro 190 for such classes.The results provide a detailed analysis of the preferences of GPs and nurses and offer guidance for the organisation of training seminars in palliative care.

conclusionsMedical and nursing education programs often pursue separate paths. Yet our findings indicate that in palliative care multidisciplinary training seminars are favoured by both, doctors and nurses. Also, both groups prefer topics that are not only deepening, but supplementing their professional knowledge.

Indexed as

Education, NursingPalliative CareProgram DevelopmentAdultAgedAustriaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysicians, Family

Identifiers

PMID20540757
PMCPMC2893516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.