End-of-life experiences in the dying process: scoping and mixed-methods systematic review

11Citations
Citations of this article
47Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives To identify the current state of understanding about end-of-life experiences (ELEs) and examine evidence concerning prevalence, the impact on the process of dying and the perceptions/explanations of patients, relatives and healthcare professionals (HCPs) with regard to ELEs. Methods Scoping review and mixed-methods systematic review (ScR and MMSR). Nine academic databases were searched for a screening of the available scientific literature (ScR). Articles reporting qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods studies were selected (MMSR), the quality of which was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) standardised critical appraisal tools. The quantitative data were synthesised in narrative form while a meta-aggregation approach was adopted for the qualitative results. Results The ScR identified 115 reports, with 70.4% published after 2010, 55.6% from the USA and the most common terminology for ELE was deathbed visions (29%). The MMSR included 36 papers, describing 35 studies in various settings. The combination of quantitative and qualitative evidence indicated a greater prevalence of ELEs in samples of patients and HCPs compared with relatives. The most common ELEs were visions and dreams of the presence of deceased relatives/friends with references to making ready for a journey. The impact of ELEs was mainly positive, and there was a tendency to interpret them as spiritual experiences inherent to the process of dying. Conclusions ELEs are often reported by patients, relatives and HCPs and have a significant, generally positive impact on the process of dying. Guidelines for the furtherance of studies and clinical applications are discussed.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Silva, T. O., Ribeiro, H. G., & Moreira-Almeida, A. (2023, June 13). End-of-life experiences in the dying process: scoping and mixed-methods systematic review. BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care. BMJ Publishing Group. https://doi.org/10.1136/spcare-2022-004055

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free