Background: The EAPC White Paper addresses the issue of spiritual care education for all palliative care professionals. It is to guide health care professionals involved in teaching or training of palliative care and spiritual care; stakeholders, leaders and decision makers responsible for training and education; as well as national and local curricula development groups.Methods: Early in 2018, preliminary draft paper was written by members of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) spiritual care reference group inviting comment on the four core elements of spiritual care education as outlined by Gamondi et al. (2013) in their paper on palliative care core competencies. The preliminary draft paper was circulated to experts from the EAPC spiritual care reference group for feedback. At the second stage feedback was incorporated into a second draft paper and experts and representatives of national palliative care organizations were invited to provide feedback and suggest revisions. The final version incorporated the subsequent criticism and as a result, the Gamondi framework was explored and critically revised leading to updated suggestions for spiritual care education in palliative care.Results: The EAPC white paper points out the importance of spiritual care as an integral part of palliative care and suggests incorporating it accordingly into educational activities and training models in palliative care. The revised spiritual care education competencies for all palliative care providers are accompanied by the best practice models and research evidence, at the same time being sensitive towards different development stages of the palliative care services across the European region.Conclusions: Better education can help the healthcare practitioner to avoid being distracted by their own fears, prejudices, and restraints and attend to the patient and his/her family. This EAPC white paper encourages and facilitates high quality, multi-disciplinary, academically and financially accessible spiritual care education to all palliative care staff.

This systematic review was conducted to assess the outcomes of spiritual care training. It outlines the training outcomes based on participants’ oral/written feedback, course evaluation and performance assessment. Intervention was defined as any form of spiritual care training provided to healthcare professionals studying/working in an academic and/or clinical setting. An online search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, PsycINFO, ASSIA, CSA, ATLA and CENTRAL up to Week 27 of 2013 by two independent investigators to reduce errors in inclusion. Only peer-reviewed journal articles reporting on training outcomes were included. A primary keyword-driven search found 4912 articles; 46 articles were identified as relevant for final analysis. The narrative synthesis of findings outlines the following outcomes: (1) acknowledging spirituality on an individual level, (2) success in integrating spirituality in clinical practice, (3) positive changes in communication with patients. This study examines primarily pre/post-effects within a single cohort. Due to an average study quality, the reported findings in this review are to be seen as indicators at most. Nevertheless, this review makes evident that without attending to one’the repeliefs and needs, addressing spirituality in patients will not be forthcoming. It also demonstrates that spiritual care training may help to challenge the spiritual vacuum in healthcare institutions.

Despite clinical experience that suggests a high burden of care among relatives of individuals with a primary malignant brain tumor (PMBT), little is known about their actual needs. In this study, the caregivers' personal experiences, quality of life, burden of care, and psychological well-being were examined. Fifty-nine percent did not receive any financial aid for home care, 33% had increased risk for psychosomatic problems, 45% had anxiety, and 33% increased depression levels. The caregiver's quality of life was most strongly affected by the burden of care (p < .001) and the patient's mental state (p < .03). To improve the situation, empathetic professionals and an early implementation of palliative care and social work are required.

Objective: Palliative care training at basic, intermediate, and specialist levels, recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), is challenging to access in resource-poor countries and regions. Providing support in this regard would seem a moral imperative for all countries with established palliative care education systems and a strong resource base. In collaboration with WHO European Office and European Association for Palliative Care, this paper looks into the educational requirements in palliative care at postgraduate level within Europe.Method: A survey was specifically designed to gather opinions and comments on elements of palliative care education from European experts. Participants were invited to assess the European Association for Palliative Care core competencies on a five-item scale and to define essential learning goals. Survey data were statistically analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics Software. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed.Result: A total of 195 data sets were recorded; 82 were completed fully. The statistical analysis revealed a high agreement regarding the key elements of palliative care education. The thematic analysis indicated that at postgraduate level all healthcare providers need to (1) comprehend the palliative care philosophy, (2) be able to demonstrate the complex symptom assessment and management competencies, (3) be able to design care plans based on patients and families wishes integrating multiprofessional and interdisciplinary approaches, and (4) be able to listen and self-reflect.Significance of results: According to the WHO, inadequate skills and capacities of healthcare workers are one of the four barriers hindering the access to palliative care. This paper contains a new and comprehensive list of learning goals essential for multidisciplinary postgraduate palliative care education. Besides highlighting the relevant competencies, the article provides best-practice toolboxes with teaching and assessment methods. The article comments on the WHO's palliative care definition and underpins the importance of the role of the education in knowledge development and skills acquisition.

Disparities in health outcomes between immigrant and native-origin populations, particularly pregnant women, pose significant challenges to healthcare systems. The aim of this systematic-review and meta-analysis was to investigate the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes among immigrant-women compared to native-origin women in the host country. PubMed (including MEDLINE), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched to retrieve studies published in English language up to September 2020. All observational studies examining the prevalence of at least one of the short-term single pregnancy outcomes for immigrants who crossed international borders compared to native-origin pregnant population were included. The meta-prop method was used for the pooled-estimation of adverse pregnancy-outcomes’ prevalence. For pool-effect estimates, the association between the immigration-status and outcomes of interest, the random-effects model was applied using the model described by DerSimonian and Laird. I² statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. The publication bias was assessed using the Harbord-test. Meta-regression was performed to explore the effect of geographical region as the heterogeneity source. This review involved 11 320 674 pregnant women with an immigration-background and 56 102 698 pregnant women as the native-origin population. The risk of emergency cesarean section (Pooled-OR = 1.1, 95%CI = 1.0–1.2), shoulder dystocia (Pooled-OR = 1.1, 95%CI = 1.0–1.3), gestational diabetes mellites (Pooled-OR = 1.4, 95%CI = 1.2–1.6), small for gestational age (Pooled-OR=1.3, 95%CI = 1.1–0.4), 5-min Apgar less than 7 (Pooled-OR = 1.2, 95%CI = 1.0–1.3) and oligohydramnios (Pooled-OR = 1.8, 95%CI = 1.0–3.3) in the immigrant women were significantly higher than those with the native origin background. The immigrant women had a lower risk of labor induction (Pooled-OR = 0.8, 95%CI = 0.7–0.8), pregnancy induced hypertension (Pooled-OR = 0.6, 95%CI = 0.5–0.7) preeclampsia (Pooled-OR = 0.7, 95%CI = 0.6–0.8), macrosomia (Pooled-OR = 0.8, 95%CI = 0.7–0.9) and large for gestational age (Pooled-OR = 0.8, 95%CI = 0.7–0.8). Also, the risk of total and primary cesarean section, instrumental-delivery, preterm-birth, and birth-trauma were similar in both groups. According to meta-regression analyses, the reported ORs were not influenced by the country of origin. The relationship between the immigration status and adverse perinatal outcomes indicated a heterogenous pattern, but the immigrant women were at an increased risk of some important adverse pregnancy outcomes. Population-based studies with a focus on the various aspects of this phenomena are required to explain the source of these heterogenicities.

Access to palliative care services is variable, and many inpatients do not receive palliative care. An overview of potential barriers could facilitate the development of strategies to overcome factors that impede access for patients with palliative care needs. To review the current evidence on barriers that impair, delay, or prohibit access to palliative care for adult hospital inpatients. A mixed methods systematic review was conducted using an integrated convergent approach and thematic synthesis (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021279477). The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched from 10/2003 to 12/2020. Studies with evidence of barriers for inpatients to access existing palliative care services were eligible and reviewed. After an initial screening of 3,359 records and 555 full-texts, 79 studies were included. Thematic synthesis yielded 149 access-related phenomena in 6 main categories: (1) Sociodemographic characteristics, (2) Health-related characteristics, (3) Individual beliefs and attitudes, (4) Inter-individual cooperation and support, (5) Availability and allocation of resources, and (6) Palliative care-specific challenges. While evidence was inconclusive for most socio-demographic factors, the following barriers emerged: having a non-cancer condition or a low symptom burden, the focus on cure in hospitals, non-acceptance of terminal prognosis, negative perceptions of palliative care, misleading communication and conflicting care preferences, lack of resources, poor coordination, insufficient expertise, and clinicians' emotional discomfort and difficult prognostication. Hospital inpatients face multiple barriers to accessing palliative care. Strategies to address these barriers need to take into account their multidimensionality and long-standing persistence.