Physicians’ perceptions of palliative sedation for existential suffering: a systematic review

Background :Palliative sedation for existential suffering (PS-ES) is a controversial clinical intervention. Empirical studies about physicians’ perceptions do not converge in a clear position and current clinical practice guidelines do not agree either regarding this kind of intervention. Aim: To ga...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Rodrigues, Paulo (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: B M J Group 2019
In:Sonderdruck aus: BMJ Supportive (2045-4368) Vol. sept 3, no.., p. 1-9 (2019)
Online Access: Volltext (kostenfrei)

MARC

LEADER 00000nam a22000002 4500
001 1818390205
003 DE-627
005 20221010171231.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 221010s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 2078.1/219363  |2 hdl 
035 |a (DE-627)1818390205 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1818390205 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Rodrigues, Paulo  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Physicians’ perceptions of palliative sedation for existential suffering: a systematic review  |c et al 
264 1 |b B M J Group  |c 2019 
264 2 |a Louvain  |b Université catholique de Louvain  |c 2019 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Background :Palliative sedation for existential suffering (PS-ES) is a controversial clinical intervention. Empirical studies about physicians’ perceptions do not converge in a clear position and current clinical practice guidelines do not agree either regarding this kind of intervention. Aim: To gain deeper insight into physicians’ perceptions of PS-ES, the factors influencing it, the conditions for implementing it and the alternatives to it. Design: Systematic review of qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies following the Peer Review Electronic Search Strategies and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses protocols; quality appraisal and thematic synthesis methodology. Data sources: Seven electronic databases(PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES) were exhaustively searched from inception through March 2019. Two reviewers screened paper titles, abstracts and full texts. We included only peer-reviewed journal articles published in English, French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Italian or Portuguese that focused on physicians’ perceptions of PS-ES. Results: The search yielded 17 publications published between 2002 and 2017. Physicians do not hold clear views or agree if and when PS-ES is appropriate. Case-related and individualrelated factors that influenced physicians’ perceptions were identified. There is still no consensus regarding criteria to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions for invoking PS-ES. Some alternatives to PS-ES were identified. Conclusions: To date, there is still no consensus on physicians’ perceptions of PS-ES. Further research is necessary to understand factors that influence physicians’ perceptions and philosophical-ethical presuppositions underlying this perceptions. 
601 |a Systematik 
773 0 8 |i Sonderdruck aus  |t BMJ Supportive  |g Vol. sept 3, no.., p. 1-9 (2019)  |x 2045-4368 
856 4 0 |u http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/219363  |x Resolving-System  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
935 |c so 
951 |a BO 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4195810515 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1818390205 
LOK |0 005 20221010171231 
LOK |0 008 221010||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-10-05#F414DAA3FF7695C74C6AAFCB73EA6F8FEDF4390A 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a rplv 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw