'Not a panacea' - Expert perspectives on the concept of resilience and its potential for palliative care.

Background: Resilience is an increasingly used term in medicine and subject to various definitions, often not easy to grasp. There are established core concepts for patients receiving palliative care, for example, meaning in life, that have already been researched a lot. Resilience, relative to these concepts, is a new object of research in palliative care, where it has so far been used predominantly with regard to the well-being of teams. Aim: To explore how experts in palliative care define the concept of resilience and its suitability for patients, significant others, and professionals. Design: Qualitative study using summarizing content analysis according to Mayring. Setting/participants: Twenty-one health and social care professionals with expertise caring for persons with life-threatening/limiting illnesses and their relatives were interviewed in three individual interviews and four focus groups. All conversations were recorded, transcribed, coded via MAXQDA, and validated by another researcher. Results: Resilience has been described as something procedural, dynamic, individual, and flexible. In connection with well-known concepts such as posttraumatic growth or terms from the field of mindfulness, social environment or personal factors have also been linked to resilience. Resources such as spirituality can contribute to resilience, and resilience itself can function as a resource, for example, by contributing to quality of life. An active use of the term in practical work with patients or relatives is rare, but it is used in education or team measures. Limited lifespan can pose a challenge to an active use of the concept of resilience. Conclusion: Resilience as a very individual approach provides added value to other core concepts of palliative care. Within the palliative context, the normative dimension of resilience must be well reflected. A broader definition of resilience is recommended, leaving room for everyone to find their own form of resilience. The concept of resilience in palliative care includes opportunities as well as risks and should, therefore, be implemented carefully, requiring specific training.

What experts think about resilience in palliative care Why was this study done? Resilience is described as a process of coping with stress or adversity while remaining physically and mentally functional. Resilience is subject to a range of definitions. In the context of palliative care, where many other concepts, such as meaning in life, are already used, the definition of resilience also represents a challenge. We wanted to learn how people working in palliative care, defined by us as experts, understand and use the concept of resilience. In addition, there are three different target groups for resilience: patients, significant others and professionals. We wanted to learn about the differences in the application of resilience to these groups. What did the researchers do? We conducted interviews with a total of 21 experts in individual and group settings (so-called focus groups). All interviews and focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim to analyse them precisely using qualitative methods. What did the researchers find? This study shows how resilience is understood in the work field of the participants: namely as something procedural, dynamic, individual and flexible but normative at the same time. Factors such as the social environment, the number and intensity of crises already experienced (known as the idea of posttraumatic growth), aspects from the field of mindfulness or spirituality can contribute to developing resilience, which is why we call these things resources for resilience. Experts use the term resilience less in their daily work with patients or significant others, but more in education. What do the findings mean? The concept of resilience in palliative care involves both risks and opportunities. Practical work with the concept has to be well reflected and must be applied sensitively. Therefore, it is essential that professional as well as informal caregivers receive specific training that also includes respect for each individual's personal concept of resilience.

Global Assessment of Palliative Care Need: Serious Health-Related Suffering Measurement Methodology.

CONTEXT: Inequities and gaps in palliative care access are a serious impediment to health systems especially in low- and middle-income countries and the accurate measurement of need across health conditions is a critical step to understanding and addressing the issue. Serious Health-related Suffering (SHS) is a novel methodology to measure the palliative care need and was originally developed by The Lancet Commission on Global Access to Palliative Care and Pain Relief. In 2015, the first iteration - SHS 1.0 - was estimated at over 61 million people worldwide experiencing at least 6 billion days of SHS annually as a result of life-limiting and life-threatening conditions. OBJECTIVES: In this paper, an updated methodology - SHS 2.0 - is presented building on the work of the Lancet Commission and detailing calculations, data requirements, limitations, and assumptions. METHODS AND RESULTS: The updates to the original methodology focus on measuring the number of people who die with (decedents) or live with (non-decedents) SHS in a given year to assess the number of people in need of palliative care across health conditions and populations. Detail on the methodology for measuring the number of days of SHS that was pioneered by the Lancet Commission, is also shared, as this second measure is essential for determining the health system responses that are necessary to address palliative care need and must be a priority for future methodological work on SHS. CONCLUSIONS: The methodology encompasses opportunities for applying SHS to future policy making assessment of future research priorities particularly in light of the dearth of data from low- and middle-income countries, and sharing of directions for future work to develop SHS 3.0.

Revised European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) recommended framework on palliative sedation: An international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) acknowledges palliative sedation as an important, broadly accepted intervention for patients with life-limiting disease experiencing refractory symptoms. The EAPC therefore developed 2009 a framework on palliative sedation. A revision was needed due to new evidence from literature, ongoing debate and criticism of methodology, terminology and applicability. AIM: To provide evidence- and consensus-based guidance on palliative sedation for healthcare professionals involved in end-of-life care, for medical associations and health policy decision-makers. DESIGN: Revision between June 2020 and September 2022 of the 2009 framework using a literature update and a Delphi procedure. SETTING: European. PARTICIPANTS: International experts on palliative sedation (identified through literature search and nomination by national palliative care associations) and a European patient organisation. RESULTS: A framework with 42 statements for which high or very high level of consensus was reached. Terminology is defined more precisely with the terms suffering used to encompass distressing physical and psychological symptoms as well as existential suffering and refractory to describe the untreatable (healthcare professionals) and intolerable (patient) nature of the suffering. The principle of proportionality is introduced in the definition of palliative sedation. No specific period of remaining life expectancy is defined, based on the principles of refractoriness of suffering, proportionality and independent decision-making for hydration. Patient autonomy is emphasised. A stepwise pharmacological approach and a guidance on hydration decision-making are provided. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first framework on palliative sedation using a strict consensus methodology. It should serve as comprehensive and soundly developed information for healthcare professionals.

'We are all in the same boat': a qualitative cross-sectional analysis of COVID-19 pandemic imagery in scientific literature and its use for people working in the German healthcare sector.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic presents a significant challenge to professional responders in healthcare settings. This is reflected in the language used to describe the pandemic in the professional literature of the respective professions. The aim of this multidisciplinary study was to analyze the linguistic imagery in the relevant professional literature and to determine the identification of different professional groups with it and its emotional effects. Method: A list of 14 typical, widespread and differing imageries for COVID-19 in form of single sentences (e.g., "Until the pandemic is over, we can only run on sight.") were presented to 1,795 healthcare professionals in an online survey. The imageries had been extracted from a qualitative search in more than 3,500 international professional journals in medicine, psychology and theology. Ratings of agreement with these imageries and feelings about them were subjected to factor analysis. Results: Based on the list of imageries presented, it was possible to identify three factors for high/low agreement by experiences, and two factors for high/low induced feelings. Broad agreement emerged for imageries on "fight against the crisis" and "lessons learned from the crisis", while imageries on "acceptance of uncontrollability" tended to be rejected. Imageries of "challenges" tended to lead to a sense of empowerment among subjects, while imageries of "humility" tended to lead to a sense of helplessness. Conclusion: Based on the qualitative and subsequential quantitative analysis, several factors for imageries for the COVID-19 pandemic were identified that have been used in the literature. Agreement with imageries is mixed, as is the assessment of how helpful they are.

[Concept-dependent and -independent care effects of site-specific care concepts using "pain" as an example]. / Konzeptabhängige und -unabhängige Versorgungseffekte standortspezifischer palliativer Versorgungskonzepte am Beispiel "Schmerz".

BACKGROUND: Structures of palliative care, cross-sectoral transitions and care pathways of patients with palliative care needs were investigated at two sites. The systematic comparison of similarities and differences using the topic of 'pain' as an example is intended to provide information on the extent to which these are related to site-specific palliative care concepts (integrated and cooperative). METHODS: The study follows a mixed-methods design. In addition to a document analysis of anonymised patient records (n = 774), expert interviews (n = 20), as well as interviews with patients, relatives (n = 60) and focus groups (n = 12), were conducted. RESULTS: The systematic comparative analysis provides evidence for concept-independent commonalities (e.g. sociodemographic distribution, aggravated pain treatment) as well as concept-dependent differences (e.g. care pathways, facilitated continuous symptom control through integrated care structures) in the context of integrated or cooperative palliative care. DISCUSSION: Commonalities and differences with regard to the topic of pain, as focused on here, and its organisational management become tangible as effects of the respective organisational structure (= concept-dependent) as well as concept-independent external influencing factors.

Interventions that may increase control at the end of life in persons with dementia: the cross-cultural CONT-END acceptability study protocol and pilot-testing.

BACKGROUND: Interventions such as advance care planning (ACP), technology, or access to euthanasia may increase the sense of control over the end of life. In people with advanced dementia, the loss of cognitive and physical function limits the ability to control care. To date, little is known about the acceptability of these interventions from the perspective of persons with dementia and others involved. This study will examine the cross-cultural acceptability, and factors associated with acceptability, of four end-of-life interventions in dementia which contain an element of striving for control. Also, we report on the development and pilot testing of animation video vignettes that explain the interventions in a standardized manner. METHODS: Cross-sectional mixed-methods vignette study. We assess acceptability of two ACP approaches, technology use at the end of life and euthanasia in persons with dementia, their family caregivers and physicians in six countries (Netherlands, Japan, Israel, USA, Germany, Switzerland). We aim to include 80 participants per country, 50 physicians, 15 persons with dementia, and 15 family caregivers. After viewing each animation video, participants are interviewed about acceptability of the intervention. We will examine differences in acceptability between group and country and explore other potentially associated factors including variables indicating life view, personality, view on dementia and demographics. In the pilot study, participants commented on the understandability and clarity of the vignettes and instruments. Based on their feedback, the scripts of the animation videos were clarified, simplified and adapted to being less slanted in a specific direction. DISCUSSION: In the pilot study, the persons with dementia, their family caregivers and other older adults found the adapted animation videos and instruments understandable, acceptable, feasible, and not burdensome. The CONT-END acceptability study will provide insight into cross-cultural acceptability of interventions in dementia care from the perspective of important stakeholders. This can help to better align interventions with preferences. The study will also result in a more fundamental understanding as to how and when having control at the end of life in dementia is perceived as beneficial or perhaps harmful. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The CONT-END acceptability study was originally registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NL7985) at 31 August, 2019, and can be found on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

Evaluation of a Study Protocol of the Application of Humor Interventions in Palliative Care Through a First Pilot Study.

Background: Humor and laughter might have an alleviating effect on pain threshold and enhance coping and building relationships. However, randomized controlled studies in palliative care have struggled with high percentages of attrition and missing values. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate a study protocol through a pilot study for the evaluation of a multistage humor intervention with psychological and physiological outcome parameters that may be applied successfully in a palliative care environment. Design: This pilot study utilized a pre-post design. The inclusion of a control group for the final study setting recruiting 120 patients is planned. Setting/Subjects: The study was a monocenter study in a clinic for palliative care in Germany. All patients were eligible for recruitment. Seven patients were recruited for the pilot study. Measurements: Interventions were developed using a humor training for psychiatric patients. Quantitative sensory testing for pain threshold testing and questionnaires on humor as a character trait, pain intensity, life satisfaction, and symptom burden were planned to be evaluated before and after three humor interventions. Results: The feasibility of the original study design was re-evaluated after pilot testing. Only two out of the seven patients were able to complete two interventions, requiring modification. Fewer questionnaires, less complex physiological testing, and reduction from three to two interventions were then planned. Conclusion: The initial planned research methodology must be adjusted for patients with high symptom burden. In the experimental group of the final study setting, the effects of one to two interventions will be evaluated measuring oxytocin levels in saliva and using standardized questionnaires to determine cheerfulness, life satisfaction and symptom burden, as well as assessing as-needed medication. Trial registration: DRKS00028978 German Registry of Clinical Studies.

Development of Care Pathway for Assessment and Treatment of Fatigue in Palliative Care.

Objectives: Fatigue is a frequent and burdensome symptom in patients with advanced disease in palliative care. However, it is under-assessed and undertreated in clinical practice, even though many treatment options have been identified in systematic reviews. Care pathways with defined and standardised steps have been recommended for effective management in the clinical setting. This paper describes a care pathway for managing fatigue in palliative care patients. This study aims to develop a care pathway with detailed guidance for screening, assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of fatigue in palliative care patients. Material and methods: A collaborative effort of multidisciplinary clinicians participated in constructing the care pathway. The care pathway was developed using the following steps: (a) Developing an intervention; (b) piloting and feasibility; (c) evaluating the intervention; (d) reporting; and (e) implementation. This paper covers the first step, which includes the evidence base identification, theory identification/development, and process/outcomes modeling. A literature search was conducted to understand the extent of the fatigue problem in the palliative care setting and identify existing guidelines and strategies for managing fatigue. Consistent recommendations emanating from the included papers were then contributed to a care pathway. Patient representatives and palliative care professionals provided feedback on the draft. Results: The care pathway address the following care processes: (1) Screening for the presence of fatigue; (2) assessment to evaluate the severity of fatigue; (3) diagnostic procedure, including history, physical examination, and laboratory finding; (4) therapeutic management pathway for clinical decision-making; and (5) valuation of treatment effect, using questionnaires, diaries and physical activity monitoring with body-worn sensors. Conclusion: The development of a care pathway will help to implement regular and structured assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of fatigue for healthcare professionals treating palliative care patients. Reviewing the pathway with a multidisciplinary expert group and field testing the pathway will be the next steps toward implementation.

Cannabis-based medicines and medical cannabis for adults with cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate-to-severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) medications are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. Pain is not sufficiently relieved by opioid medications in 10% to 15% of people with cancer. In people with insufficient relief of cancer pain, new analgesics are needed to effectively and safely supplement or replace opioids. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines, including medical cannabis, for treating pain and other symptoms in adults with cancer compared to placebo or any other established analgesic for cancer pain. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected double-blind randomised, controlled trials (RCT) of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment for cancer pain in adults, with any treatment duration and at least 10 participants per treatment arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcomes were 1. proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved and 3. withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 4. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater and overall opioid use reduced or stable; 5. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater, or 50% or greater; 6. pain intensity; 7. sleep problems; 8. depression and anxiety; 9. daily maintenance and breakthrough opioid dosage; 10. dropouts due to lack of efficacy; 11. all central nervous system adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 studies involving 1823 participants. No study assessed the proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain on treatment by 14 days after start of treatment. We found five RCTs assessing oromucosal nabiximols (tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)) or THC alone involving 1539 participants with moderate or severe pain despite opioid therapy. The double-blind periods of the RCTs ranged between two and five weeks. Four studies with a parallel design and 1333 participants were available for meta-analysis. There was moderate-certainty evidence that there was no clinically relevant benefit for proportions of PGIC much or very much improved (risk difference (RD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 8 to 100). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 25, 95% CI 16 to endless). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no difference between nabiximols or THC and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07). There was moderate-certainty evidence that nabiximols and THC used as add-on treatment for opioid-refractory cancer pain did not differ from placebo in reducing mean pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.02). There was low-certainty evidence that a synthetic THC analogue (nabilone) delivered over eight weeks was not superior to placebo in reducing pain associated with chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer (2 studies, 89 participants, qualitative analysis). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that synthetic THC analogues were superior to placebo (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.60), but not superior to low-dose codeine (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.32; 5 single-dose trials; 126 participants) in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain after cessation of previous analgesic treatment for three to four and a half hours (2 single-dose trials; 66 participants). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that CBD oil did not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain intensity in people with advanced cancer. There was no difference in the number of dropouts due to adverse events and serious adverse events (1 study, 144 participants, qualitative analysis). We found no studies using herbal cannabis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that oromucosal nabiximols and THC are ineffective in relieving moderate-to-severe opioid-refractory cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that nabilone is ineffective in reducing pain associated with (radio-) chemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. There is low-certainty evidence that a single dose of synthetic THC analogues is not superior to a single low-dose morphine equivalent in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that CBD does not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain in people with advanced cancer.

ANTECEDENTES: El dolor es un síntoma común en las personas con cáncer; entre el 30% y el 50% de las personas con cáncer experimentarán dolor de moderado a intenso. Esto puede tener un gran impacto negativo en su calidad de vida. Los fármacos opiáceos (similares a la morfina) se utilizan habitualmente para tratar el dolor por cáncer moderado o intenso, y se recomiendan para este propósito en la escala de tratamiento del dolor de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). El dolor no se alivia lo suficiente con los medicamentos opiáceos en el 10% al 15% de las personas con cáncer. En las personas con un alivio insuficiente del dolor por cáncer, se necesitan nuevos analgésicos que complementen o sustituyan de forma eficaz y segura a los opiáceos. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos beneficiosos y perjudiciales de los medicamentos con cannabis, incluido el cannabis medicinal, para tratar el dolor y otros síntomas en adultos con cáncer en comparación con placebo o cualquier otro analgésico establecido para el dolor por cáncer. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se utilizaron los métodos exhaustivos estándar de búsqueda de Cochrane. La última fecha de búsqueda fue el 26 de enero de 2023. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se seleccionaron los ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) doble ciego de cannabis medicinal, medicamentos derivados de plantas y sintéticos con cannabis versus placebo o cualquier otro tratamiento activo para el dolor por cáncer en adultos, con cualquier duración del tratamiento y al menos 10 participantes por grupo de tratamiento. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Se utilizaron los métodos estándar de Cochrane. Los desenlaces principales fueron los siguientes: 1. proporción de participantes que declararon dolor leve; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) de mucha o muchísima mejoría y 3. retiros debido a eventos adversos. Los desenlaces secundarios fueron 4. número de participantes que declararon un alivio del dolor del 30% o superior y un consumo general de opiáceos reducido o estable; 5. número de participantes que declararon un alivio del dolor del 30% o superior, o del 50% o superior; 6. intensidad del dolor; 7. problemas de sueño; 8. depresión y ansiedad; 9. dosis diaria de opiáceos de mantenimiento y de inicio; 10. abandonos por falta de eficacia; 11. todos los eventos adversos del sistema nervioso central. Se utilizó el método GRADE para evaluar la calidad de la evidencia de cada desenlace. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se identificaron 14 estudios con 1823 participantes. Ningún estudio evaluó las proporciones de participantes que declararon un dolor no peor que leve a los 14 días de inicio del tratamiento. Se encontraron cinco ECA que evaluaron nabiximoles oromucosos (tetrahidrocannabinol [THC] y cannabidiol [CBD]) o THC solo, con 1539 participantes con dolor moderado o intenso a pesar del tratamiento con opiáceos. Los periodos doble ciego de los ECA variaron entre dos y cinco semanas. Para el metanálisis se dispuso de cuatro estudios con un diseño paralelo y 1333 participantes. Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que no hubo efectos beneficiosos clínicamente relevantes en las proporciones de PGIC de mucha o muchísima mejoría (diferencia de riesgos [DR] 0,06; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,01 a 0,12; número necesario a tratar para lograr un resultado beneficioso adicional [NNTB] 16; IC del 95%: 8 a 100). Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que no hubo diferencias clínicamente relevantes en la proporción de retiros debido a eventos adversos (DR 0,04; IC del 95%: 0 a 0,08; número necesario a tratar para lograr un desenlace perjudicial adicional [NNTD] 25; IC del 95%: 16 a infinito). Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que no hubo diferencias entre nabiximols o THC y placebo en la frecuencia de eventos adversos graves (DR 0,02; IC del 95%: ­0,03 a 0,07). Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que los nabiximoles y el THC utilizados como tratamiento complementario para el dolor por cáncer refractario a los opiáceos no difirieron del placebo en cuanto a la reducción de la intensidad media del dolor (diferencia de medias estandarizada [DME] ­0,19; IC del 95%: ­0,40 a 0,02). Hubo evidencia de certeza baja de que un análogo sintético del THC (nabilona) administrado durante ocho semanas no fue superior a placebo para reducir el dolor asociado con la quimioterapia o la radioquimioterapia en personas con cáncer de cabeza y cuello y cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas (dos estudios, 89 participantes, análisis cualitativo). En estos estudios no fue posible realizar análisis de tolerabilidad y seguridad. Hubo evidencia de certeza baja de que los análogos sintéticos del THC fueron superiores a placebo (DME ­0,98; IC del 95%: ­1,36 a ­0,60), pero no superiores a la codeína en dosis bajas (DME 0,03; IC del 95%: ­0,25 a 0,32; cinco ensayos de dosis única; 126 participantes) en cuanto a la reducción del dolor moderado a intenso por cáncer después de la interrupción del tratamiento analgésico previo durante tres a cuatro horas y media (dos ensayos de dosis única; 66 participantes). En estos estudios no fue posible realizar análisis de tolerabilidad y seguridad. Hubo evidencia de certeza baja de que el aceite de CBD no agregó valor a los cuidados paliativos especializados solos en la reducción de la intensidad del dolor en personas con cáncer avanzado. No hubo diferencias en el número de abandonos debido a eventos adversos ni eventos adversos graves (un estudio, 144 participantes, análisis cualitativo). No se encontraron estudios que utilizaran la planta de cannabis. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Existe evidencia de certeza moderada de que los nabiximoles y el THC por vía oromucosa no son efectivos para aliviar el dolor de moderado a intenso por cáncer refractario a los opiáceos. Hay evidencia de certeza baja de que la nabilona no es efectiva para reducir el dolor asociado con la radio­quimioterapia en personas con cáncer de cabeza y cuello y cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas. Hay evidencia de certeza baja de que una dosis única de análogos sintéticos del THC no es superior a una dosis única baja equivalente de morfina para reducir el dolor moderado a intenso por cáncer. Hay evidencia de certeza baja de que el CBD no aporta valor a los cuidados paliativos especializados solos en la reducción del dolor en personas con cáncer avanzado.

Parallel opioid crises: brakes on sustainable development?

This Review perspective analyzes the parallel 'opioid crises' - one of access, the other of excess - affecting different demographic groups in distinct regions of the world, in terms of a knowledge gap between the founding 20th-century regulatory frameworks around 'drugs', including opioids, and evolving 21st-century clinical developments in public health, palliative care, addiction medicine, and regulatory sciences. Identifying the parallel crises as such is a positive step that can enable governance and science to catch up to one another and realign. As it is now, the opioid crises are acting as brakes on development as defined by the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDGs). Both crises affect UN member states' ability to reach the Goal 3 'Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages' of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Among the nine targets for Goal 3, the two opioid crises affect progress toward Target 3.5, on strengthening the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse, and Target 3.8, providing Universal Health Coverage (UHC), and adequate access to essential medicines. The parallel opioid crises, which both represent misalignment between anachronistic governance structures and epistemic developments, have several things in common beyond the opioid molecules themselves: regulatory and health system deficits that interact pathologically with baked in cultural stigma around psychoactive substances, stigma evident in the designation of these substances in international law as 'narcotic drugs'. Community regeneration, educational development, and governance reforms can now replace politicized rather than evidence-based and public health-promoting drug policies that block progress toward both SDG 3 targets in different countries for different reasons. Quantification of serious health-related suffering (SHS) pertaining to a range of health conditions and demographic groups now provides the epidemiological evidence to legitimate such a timely paradigm shift.

[Who is afraid of Ockham's razor? : A discourse analysis on resilience in palliative care (2000-2021)]. / Wer hat Angst vor "Ockham's Razor"? : Eine Diskursanalyse zur Resilienz in der Palliativversorgung (2000­2021).

BACKGROUND: The concept of resilience is becoming increasingly disseminated from material science into various fields of science. It is infiltrating medical fields predominantly via psychology and is also recommended for coping with the special burdens in pain management and palliative care. A precise definition of the term and its operationalization pose problems. AIM: A critical stocktaking of the use of this term in the discourse of palliative care research. METHOD: Analytical discourse analysis of a text corpus from palliative medical care publications in the time period from 2000 to 2021, obtained by means of a systematic literature search. RESULTS: In the research discourse of palliative care, resilience is a topic primarily as a strategy for self-optimization of employees (e.g., burnout prophylaxis with the aim of preserving the workforce). Only rarely does the question of whether it offers potential for patients and their families take center stage, and then more as a catchword than as a concrete concept. The reason is that there is so far no adequate operationalization of the concept of resilience. Furthermore, there is a lack of sufficient justification for the relevance of the concept in patient care of palliative medicine. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of qualified contributions of palliative research to the metadiscourse about resilience, especially in the context of affected patients. A successful operationalization of the term requires a highly complex multidimensionality of the palliative path of an interdisciplinary approach. There is a lack of ethical standards that prevent an affirmative instrumentalizing application of the term.