Reciprocal Dynamics of Dignity in End-of-Life Care: A Multiperspective Systematic Review of Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research
Author(s) -
Choo Ping Ying,
Tan-Ho Geraldine,
Dutta Oindrila,
Patinadan Paul Victor,
Ho Andy Hau Yan
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
american journal of hospice and palliative medicine®
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.803
H-Index - 51
eISSN - 1938-2715
pISSN - 1049-9091
DOI - 10.1177/1049909119878860
Subject(s) - dignity , palliative care , cinahl , thematic analysis , reciprocity (cultural anthropology) , end of life care , nursing , personhood , medicine , existentialism , qualitative research , psychology , social psychology , sociology , psychological intervention , epistemology , political science , law , social science , philosophy
Background: Preserving terminally ill patients’ dignity and well-being through dignified and holistic care has become the overarching goal in palliative care services. However, dignity is a multifaceted concept with a wide range of interpretations under different cultural contexts.Aim: The aim of this review is to understand the variations in subjective interpretations and constitutions of dignity in palliative or end-of-life care via an integrative worldview.Design: This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline and used SPIDER tool to screen for appropriate and relevant articles for analysis.Data Sources: Four major databases were searched including CINAHL, ERIC, Medline, and PsycARTICLES between 2009 and 2018. Forty-eight qualitative studies that examined dignity from the perspectives of patients, family caregivers, and health-care professionals were selected for full text data analysis using thematic synthesis.Results: Analysis of the various concepts of dignity revealed 18 themes that were further categorized into 7 conceptual categories: (1) self-determination, (2) existential liberty, (3) relational connectedness, (4) caregiving revitalization, (5) mindful humanity, (6) patient–family care, and (7) sustainable culture. These 7 categories span across individual, familial, and institutional dimensions, forming a new Dynamic Reciprocity of Dignity model.Conclusions: The Dynamic Reciprocity of Dignity model highlights the importance of adopting a systemic lens to address dignity-related needs and concerns at the end of life, while providing insights on how compassionate care and self-compassion can serve as the foundation of dignified care, which in turn serve as a buffer against patients’ existential suffering as well as caregivers’ burnout and fatigue. Recommendations for clinical practice and future research directions are discussed.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom