Home › Research › End-of-life care
Revised recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe from the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC): A Delphi study
Payne S, Harding A, Williams T, Ling J, Ostgathe C.. Palliative medicine, 2022-02-03
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background In 2009, the EAPC published recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe, and a decade later, wished to update them to reflect contemporary practice. Aim To elicit consensus on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe, taking account of developments since 2009. Design A Delphi technique used three sequential online survey rounds, and a final expert consultation (EAPC Board). The original 2009 questionnaire with 134 statements was updated with 13 new concepts and practices following a scoping of the literature between 2009 and 2020 (total: 147 statements). Setting/participants One contact of Boards of 52 national European organisations affiliated to the EAPC were invited to participate, with subsequent rounds sent to respondees. The EAPC Board ( n = 13) approved final recommendations. Results In Round 1: 30 organisations (14 organisations × two people, 16 organisations × one person, total n = 44) in 27 countries responded (response rate 58% organisations, 82% countries ) , Round 2 ( n = 40), Round 3 ( n = 38). 119 statements reached consensus in Round 1, 9 in Round 2, 7 in Round 3. In total 135/145 statements in five domains (terminology, philosophy, levels, delivery, services) reached consensus (defined as >75% agreement), (122) were original EAPC recommendations with 13 new recommendations included emerging specialisms: neonatal, geriatric and dementia care, and better care practices. Seven statements failed to reach consensus and four were removed as irrelevant or repetition. Conclusions Most recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe remain unchanged since 2009. Evolving concepts in palliative care can be used to support advocacy.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Payne, S., Harding, A., Williams, T., Ling, J., & Ostgathe, C. (2022). Revised recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe from the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC): A Delphi study. Palliative medicine. https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163221074547
Vancouver
Payne S, Harding A, Williams T, Ling J, Ostgathe C. Revised recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe from the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC): A Delphi study. Palliative medicine. 2022. doi:10.1177/02692163221074547. PMID: 35114839.
BibTeX
@article{payne2022-35114839,
author = {Payne, S. and Harding, A. and Williams, T. and Ling, J. and Ostgathe, C.},
title = {{Revised recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe from the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC): A Delphi study}},
journal = {Palliative medicine},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1177/02692163221074547},
pmid = {35114839},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163221074547}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results In Round 1: 30 organisations (14 organisations × two people, 16 organisations × one person, total n = 44) in 27 countries responded (response rate 58% organisations, 82% countries ) , Round 2 ( n = 40), Round 3 ( n = 38). 119 statements reached consensus in Round 1, 9 in Round 2, 7 in Round 3.
Study details
- Participants13
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Palliative medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 13 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35114839) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 29 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in End-of-life care
Also tagged “delirium”
858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “delirium”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.