Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28146566›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

General Practitioners' Attitudes towards Essential Competencies in End-of-Life Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Stéphanie Giezendanner, Corinna Jung, Hans-Ruedi Banderet, Ina Carola Otte, Heike Gudat, Dagmar M Haller, Bernice S Elger, Elisabeth Zemp, Klaus Bally

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

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

9 authors.

Stéphanie GiezendannerCentre for Primary Health Care, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Corinna JungCentre for Primary Health Care, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Hans-Ruedi BanderetCentre for Primary Health Care, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Ina Carola OtteInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Heike GudatHospiz im Park, Hospital for Palliative Care, Arlesheim, Basel District, Switzerland.
Dagmar M HallerPrimary Care Unit, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Bernice S ElgerInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Elisabeth ZempSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Klaus BallyCentre for Primary Health Care, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentifying essential competencies in end-of-life care, as well as general practitioners' (GPs) confidence in these competencies, is essential to guide training and quality improvement efforts in this domain.

aimTo determine which competencies in end-of-life care are considered important by GPs, to assess GPs' confidence in these competencies in a European context and their reasons to refer terminally ill patients to a specialist. DESIGN AND

settingCross-sectional postal survey involving a stratified random sample of 2000 GPs in Switzerland in 2014.

methodSurvey development was informed by a previous qualitative exploration of relevant end-of-life GP competencies. Main outcome measures were GPs' assessment of the importance of and confidence in 18 attributes of end-of-life care competencies, and reasons for transferring care of terminally-ill patients to a specialist. GP characteristics associated with main outcome measures were tested using multivariate regression models.

resultsThe response rate was 31%. Ninety-nine percent of GPs considered the recognition and treatment of pain as important, 86% felt confident about it. Few GPs felt confident in cultural (16%), spiritual (38%) and legal end-of-life competencies such as responding to patients seeking assisted suicide (35%) although more than half of the respondents regarded these competencies as important. Most frequent reasons to refer terminally ill patients to a specialist were lack of time (30%), better training of specialists (23%) and end-of-life care being incompatible with other duties (19%). In multiple regression analyses, confidence in end-of-life care was positively associated with GPs' age, practice size, home visits and palliative training.

conclusionsGPs considered non-somatic competencies (such as spiritual, cultural, ethical and legal aspects) nearly as important as pain and symptom control. Yet, few GPs felt confident in these non-somatic competencies. These findings should inform training and quality improvement efforts in this domain, in particular for younger, less experienced GPs.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelClinical CompetenceTerminal CareCross-Sectional StudiesDisease ManagementFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansMalePalliative CareReferral and ConsultationRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesSwitzerlandTerminally Ill

Identifiers

PMID28146566
PMCPMC5287469

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.