Nuestros investigadores

Natalia Sofía Arias Casais

Publicaciones científicas más recientes (desde 2010)

Autores: Arias, Natalia Sofía, (Autor de correspondencia); Garralda, Eduardo; De Lima, L. ; et al.
Revista: JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
ISSN 1096-6218  Vol. 22  Nº 5  2019  págs. 580 - 590
Background: Indicators assessing national-level palliative care (PC) development used for cross-national comparison depict progress on this field. There is current interest on its inclusion in global monitoring frameworks. Objective: Identify and conceptualize those most frequently used for international PC development reporting. Design: Systematic review. Data Sources: PubMed, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Google targeting national-level development indicators used for cross-national comparison. Additional search requesting experts' suggestions on key studies and "snow-balling" on reference section of all included studies. Identified indicators were listed and categorized in dimensions: services, use of medicines, policy, and education. Results: Fifty-four studies were included. Development has been evaluated using 480 different formulations of 165 indicators, 38 were highly reported. Thirty-two fell into proposed dimensions, 11 for use of medicines, 9 for policy, 7 for services, and 5 for education. Six into complementary dimensions: research, professional activity, and international cooperation. Six were the most frequently used indicators: number of PC services per population (40 reports), existence of PC national plan, strategy, or program (25), existence of palliative medicine specialization (22), availability and allocation of funds for PC (13), medical schools, including PC, in undergraduate curricula (13), and total use of opioids-morphine equivalents (11). Conclusion: There is a clear pattern for national-level PC development evaluation repeatedly using a small number of indicators. Indicators addressing generalistic provision, integration into health systems, and specific fields such as pediatric lack. This study invites international discussion on a global consensus on PC-development assessment.
Autores: Arias, Natalia Sofía, (Autor de correspondencia); Garralda, Eduardo; López-Fidalgo, J.; et al.
Revista: JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT
ISSN 0885-3924  Vol. 58  Nº 3  2019  págs. 445 - 453.e1
Context. International consensus on indicators is necessary to standardize the global assessment of palliative care (PC) development. Objectives. To identify the best indicators to assess current national-level PC development. Methods. Experts in PC development were invited to rate 45 indicators organized by domains of the World Health Organization Public Health Strategy in a two-round RAND/UCLA-modified Delphi process. In the first round, experts rated indicators by relevance, measurability, and feasibility (1-9). Ratings were used to calculate a global score (1-9). Indicators scoring >7 proceeded to the second round for fine-tuning of global scores. Median, confidence interval, Content Validity Index, and Disagreement Index were calculated. Indicators scoring a lower limit 95% confidence interval of >7 and a Content Validity Index of >= 0.30 were selected. Results. 24 experts representing five continents and several organizations completed the study. 25 indicators showed a high content validity and level of agreement. Policy indicators (n = 8) included the existence of designated staff in the National Ministry of Health and the inclusion of PC services in the basic health package and in the primary care level list of services. Education indicators (n = 4) focused on processes of official specialization for physicians, inclusion of teaching at the undergraduate level, and PC professorship. Use of medicines indicators (n = 4) consisted of opioid consumption, availability, and prescription requirements. Services indicators (n = 6) included number and type of services for adults and children. Additional indicators for professional activity (n = 3) were identified. Conclusion. The first list including 25 of the best indicators to evaluate PC development at a national level has been identified. (C) 2019 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.