Review: The quality of dying and death: a systematic review of measures

Author:

Hales Sarah1,Zimmermann Camilla2,Rodin Gary2

Affiliation:

1. Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada,

2. Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada

Abstract

To determine whether modern medicine is facilitating ‘good’ deaths, appropriate measures of the quality of dying and death must be developed and utilized. The purpose of this paper is to identify quality of dying and death measurement tools and to determine their quality. MEDLINE (1950—2008), Healthstar (1966—2008), and CINAHL (1982—2008) were searched using keyword terms ‘quality of dying/death’ and ‘good/bad death’. Papers that described a quality of dying and death measure or that aimed to measure the quality of dying and death were selected for review. The evaluation criteria included a description of the measure development (validated or ad hoc), the provision of a definition of quality of dying and death, an empirical basis for the measure, the incorporation of multiple domains and the subjective nature of the quality of dying and death construct, and responsiveness to change. Eighteen measures met the selection criteria. Six were published with some description of the development process and 12 were developed ad hoc. Less than half were based on an explicit definition of quality of dying and death and even fewer relied on a conceptual model that incorporated multidimensionality and subjective determination. The specified duration of the dying and death phase ranged from the last months to hours of life. Of the six published measures reviewed, the Quality of Dying and Death questionnaire (QODD) is the most widely studied and best validated. Strategies to measure the quality of dying and death are becoming increasingly rigorous. Further research is required to understand the factors influencing the ratings of the quality of dying and death.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3