4.5 Review

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

期刊

PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 127-144

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0269216309351783

关键词

end of life; measurement; quality of death; quality of dying

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Operating Grant [74684]
  2. National Cancer Institute of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据