Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27193395›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2016

A knowledge synthesis of culturally- and spiritually-sensitive end-of-life care: findings from a scoping review.

Mei Lan Fang, Judith Sixsmith, Shane Sinclair, Glen Horst

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 124 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Mei Lan FangGerontology Research Centre, Simon Fraser University, 2800-515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 5 K3, Canada. mlfang@sfu.ca.
Judith SixsmithInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Northampton, Northampton, UK.
Shane SinclairFaculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Glen HorstHospice Clinical Team, Canadian Virtual Hospice, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Canadian Virtual University · CASimon Fraser University · CAUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Northampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiple factors influence the end-of-life (EoL) care and experience of poor quality services by culturally- and spiritually-diverse groups. Access to EoL services e.g. health and social supports at home or in hospices is difficult for ethnic minorities compared to white European groups. A tool is required to empower patients and families to access culturally-safe care. This review was undertaken by the Canadian Virtual Hospice as a foundation for this tool.

methodsTo explore attitudes, behaviours and patterns to utilization of EoL care by culturally and spiritually diverse groups and identify gaps in EoL care practice and delivery methods, a scoping review and thematic analysis of article content was conducted. Fourteen electronic databases and websites were searched between June-August 2014 to identify English-language peer-reviewed publications and grey literature (including reports and other online resources) published between 2004-2014.

resultsThe search identified barriers and enablers at the systems, community and personal/family levels. Primary barriers include: cultural differences between healthcare providers; persons approaching EoL and family members; under-utilization of culturally-sensitive models designed to improve EoL care; language barriers; lack of awareness of cultural and religious diversity issues; exclusion of families in the decision-making process; personal racial and religious discrimination; and lack of culturally-tailored EoL information to facilitate decision-making.

conclusionsThis review highlights that most research has focused on decision-making. There were fewer studies exploring different cultural and spiritual experiences at the EoL and interventions to improve EoL care. Interventions evaluated were largely educational in nature rather than service oriented.

Indexed as

Cultural CharacteristicsDecision MakingSpiritualityCanadaEthnicityFamilyHumansRacial GroupsSocial SupportTerminal CareAttitudes & practiceCultural competencyEthnic groupsHealth knowledgeReviewSpiritualityTerminal care

Identifiers

PMID27193395
PMCPMC4872365
OpenAlexW2397363751

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.