PubMed · 15132034
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Tim Turner. Help needed inside.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15132034/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Rural populations experience persistent inequities in access to palliative care. Existing evidence often describes individual barriers separately, with less attention to how access breaks down across the care pathway or how different service configurations shape access. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise evidence on access to palliative care in rural settings and examine how access barriers, service models, and implementation conditions interact across the care pathway. METHODS: A mixed-methods systematic review using a convergent integrated approach searched nine databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, CNKI, WanFang, SinoMed) from inception to 15 March 2026, supplemented by hand-searching. Eligible studies were primary qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies on access to palliative care for adults in rural or non-urban settings. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were mapped to the Levesque access framework, analysed using the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and integrated through mixed-methods synthesis, with additional coding of service models. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included, of which 26 were conducted in high-income countries and eight in low- and middle-income countries. Service configurations included specialist or hospice-oriented care, generalist or primary-care-oriented care, mixed specialist-generalist models, home-based and caregiver-centred care, nurse-coordinated services, telehealth-supported care, and community or implementation-oriented approaches. Access broke down cumulatively across four interdependent stages: recognition, entry, reach, and use and continuity, with affordability constraining every stage. Recognition was limited by low awareness, poor service visibility, and delayed identification of need. Entry was shaped by stigma, trust, family expectations, and unclear referral processes. Reach was constrained by distance, transport, workforce shortages, limited specialist capacity, and weak infrastructure. Use and continuity were affected by fragmented coordination, weak transitions, unstable follow-up, and reliance on family caregivers. Access problems varied across service configurations. Evidence on service innovations was methodologically less certain, and the overall evidence base remained concentrated in high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Access to palliative care in rural settings is best understood as a pathway and service-configuration problem rather than simply a deficit in service availability. Improving access requires earlier recognition, clearer referral routes, stronger specialist-generalist and nursing links, better support for family caregivers, and greater attention to affordability, continuity, and rural settings with limited resources. REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD420261340783.
BACKGROUND: Conventional systematic review techniques have limitations when the aim of a review is to construct a critical analysis of a complex body of literature. This article offers a reflexive account of an attempt to conduct an interpretive review of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups in the UK METHODS: This project involved the development and use of the method of Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS). This approach is sensitised to the processes of conventional systematic review methodology and draws on recent advances in methods for interpretive synthesis. RESULTS: Many analyses of equity of access have rested on measures of utilisation of health services, but these are problematic both methodologically and conceptually. A more useful means of understanding access is offered by the synthetic construct of candidacy. Candidacy describes how people's eligibility for healthcare is determined between themselves and health services. It is a continually negotiated property of individuals, subject to multiple influences arising both from people and their social contexts and from macro-level influences on allocation of resources and configuration of services. Health services are continually constituting and seeking to define the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention, while at the same time people are engaged in constituting and defining what they understand to be the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention. Access represents a dynamic interplay between these simultaneous, iterative and mutually reinforcing processes. By attending to how vulnerabilities arise in relation to candidacy, the phenomenon of access can be better understood, and more appropriate recommendations made for policy, practice and future research. DISCUSSION: By innovating with existing methods for interpretive synthesis, it was possible to produce not only new methods for conducting what we have termed critical interpretive synthesis, but also a new theoretical conceptualisation of access to healthcare. This theoretical account of access is distinct from models already extant in the literature, and is the result of combining diverse constructs and evidence into a coherent whole. Both the method and the model should be evaluated in other contexts.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.