The International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care developed a consensus-based definition of palliative care (PC) that focuses on the relief of serious health-related suffering, a concept put forward by the Lancet Commission Global Access to Palliative Care and Pain Relief. The main objective of this article is to present the research behind the new definition. The three-phased consensus process involved health care workers from countries in all income levels. In Phase 1, 38 PC experts evaluated the components of the World Health Organization definition and suggested new/revised ones. In Phase 2, 412 International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care members in 88 countries expressed their level of agreement with the suggested components. In Phase 3, using results from Phase 2, the expert panel developed the definition. The consensus-based definition is as follows: Palliative care is the active holistic care of individuals across all ages with serious health-related suffering due to severe illness and especially of those near the end of life. It aims to improve the quality of life of patients, their families and their caregivers. The definition includes a number of bullet points with additional details as well as recommendations for governments to reduce barriers to PC. Participants had significantly different perceptions and interpretations of PC. The greatest challenge faced by the core group was trying to find a middle ground between those who think that PC is the relief of all suffering and those who believe that PC describes the care of those with a very limited remaining life span.

Palliative care is gaining ground globally and is endorsed in high-level policy commitments, but service provision, supporting policies, education, and funding are incommensurate with rapidly growing needs. The objective of this study was to describe current levels of global palliative care development and report on changes since 2006. An online survey of experts in 198 countries generated 2017 data on 10 indicators of palliative care provision, fitted to six categories of development. Factor analysis and discriminant analysis showed the validity of the categorization. Spearman correlation analyses assessed the relationship with World Bank Income Level (WBIL), Human Development Index (HDI), and Universal Health Coverage (UHC). Numbers (percentages) of countries in each development category were as follows: 1) no known palliative care activity, 47 (24%); 2) capacity-building, 13 (7%); 3a) isolated provision, 65 (33%); 3b) generalized provision, 22 (11%); 4a) preliminary integration into mainstream provision, 21 (11%); 4b) advanced integration, 30 (15%). Development levels were significantly associated with WBIL (rS = 0.4785), UHC (rS = 0.5558), and HDI (rS = 0.5426) with P < 0.001. Net improvement between 2006 and 2017 saw 32 fewer countries in Categories 1/2, 16 more countries in 3a/3b, and 17 more countries in 4a/4b. Palliative care at the highest level of provision is available for only 14% of the global population and is concentrated in European countries. An 87% global increase in serious health-related suffering amenable to palliative care interventions is predicted by 2060. With an increasing need, palliative care is not reaching the levels required by at least half of the global population.

Background: Early integration of palliative care into the management of patients with serious disease has the potential to both improve quality of life of patients and families and reduce healthcare costs. Despite these benefits, significant barriers exist in the United States to the early integration of palliative care in the disease trajectory of individuals with serious illness. Aim: To provide an overview of the barriers to more widespread palliative care integration in the United States. Design and data sources: A literature review using PubMed from 2005 to March 2015 augmented by primary data collected from 405 hospitals included in the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s National Palliative Care Registry for years 2012 and 2013. We use the World Health Organization’s Public Health Strategy for Palliative Care as a framework for analyzing barriers to palliative care integration. Results: We identified key barriers to palliative care integration across three World Health Organization domains: (1) education domain: lack of adequate education/training and perception of palliative care as end-of-life care; (2) implementation domain: inadequate size of palliative medicine–trained workforce, challenge of identifying patients appropriate for palliative care referral, and need for culture change across settings; (3) policy domain: fragmented healthcare system, need for greater funding for research, lack of adequate reimbursement for palliative care, and regulatory barriers. Conclusion: We describe the key policy and educational opportunities in the United States to address and potentially overcome the barriers to greater integration of palliative care into the healthcare of Americans with serious illness.

It is increasingly necessary to have a measuring instrument available in the health field that can be used in clinical practice and research. In order to guarantee the quality of their measurements it is essential that the instruments should be subjected to a process of validation. This process consists in adapting the instrument culturally to the setting where its psychometric characteristics are to be administered and checked, such as: reliability, validity, sensitivity and feasibility. There are measuring instruments from the health field available in other languages but that have not been validated into Spanish. Besides, the methodology for validating an instrument is little understood by the health professionals, which explains the indiscriminate use of instruments that have only been adapted or validated in a way that is not very consistent. The aim of this review is to bring up to date the process of validating an instrument for measuring health, and what it involves, in a practical way. The accessibility of evaluation instruments that have been culturally adapted and validated in different languages will facilitate the comparison of results obtained with the same instrument and the development international studies in different cultures.

Background: Dignity therapy is psychotherapy to relieve psychological and existential distress in patients at the end of life. Little is known about its effect. Aim: To analyse the outcomes of dignity therapy in patients with advanced life-threatening diseases. Design: Systematic review was conducted. Three authors extracted data of the articles and evaluated quality using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Data were synthesized, considering study objectives. Data sources: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO. The years searched were 2002 (year of dignity therapy development) to January 2016. ‘Dignity therapy’ was used as search term. Studies with patients with advanced life-threatening diseases were included. Results: Of 121 studies, 28 were included. Quality of studies is high. Results were grouped into effectiveness, satisfaction, suitability and feasibility, and adaptability to different diseases and cultures. Two of five randomized control trials applied dignity therapy to patients with high levels of baseline psychological distress. One showed statistically significant decrease on patients’ anxiety and depression scores over time. The other showed statistical decrease on anxiety scores pre–post dignity therapy, not on depression. Nonrandomized studies suggested statistically significant improvements in existential and psychosocial measurements. Patients, relatives and professionals perceived it improved end-of-life experience. Conclusion: Evidence suggests that dignity therapy is beneficial. One randomized controlled trial with patients with high levels of psychological distress shows DT efficacy in anxiety and depression scores. Other design studies report beneficial outcomes in terms of end-of-life experience. Further research should understand how dignity therapy functions to establish a means for measuring its impact and assessing whether high level of distress patients can benefit most from this therapy.

Constipation is one of the most common problems in patients receiving palliative care and can cause extreme suffering and discomfort. The aims of this study are to raise awareness of constipation in palliative care, provide clear, practical guidance on management and encourage further research in the area. A pan-European working group of physicians and nurses with significant experience in the management of constipation in palliative care met to evaluate the published evidence and produce these clinical practice recommendations. Four potentially relevant publications were identified, highlighting a lack of clear, practical guidance on the assessment, diagnosis and management of constipation in palliative care patients. Given the limited data available, our recommendations are based on expert clinical opinion, relevant research findings from other settings and best practice from the countries represented. Palliative care patients are at a high risk of constipation, and while general principles of prevention should be followed, pharmacological treatment is often necessary. The combination of a softener and stimulant laxative is generally recommended, and the choice of laxatives should be made on an individual basis. The current evidence base is poor and further research is required on many aspects of the assessment, diagnosis and management of constipation in palliative care.