ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Humor has its own place in the context of medicine. Nevertheless, its acceptance by terminal stage patients and health-care professionals has not been studied in depth and is not free from controversy. OBJECTIVES: To understand the significance, appropriateness, and pertinence of the use of humor in palliative care and to analyze its applicability. DESIGN: A narrative systematic review was undertaken and included in PROSPERO. DATA SOURCES: Online searches were carried out on PUBMED, PSYCINFO, EBSCO (CINHAL), EMBASE, SCIELO, SCOPUS, TESEO, WEB of SCIENCE, and COCHRANE between their launch date and December 31, 2015, complemented with manual searches with queries to experts. A total of 156 studies were identified, which were then filtered in pairs by means of an established hierarchy, selecting studies that discussed the use of humor specifically in palliative care from all perspectives and designs, and finally published in Spanish, English, French, or Portuguese. Critical reading of all the selected studies took place, with no exclusions due to quality evaluation. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included. Five main topics were identified: (1) definition of humor, (2) use and functions of humor in palliative care, (3) how to use humor, (4) when not to use humor, and (5) humor before and after the diagnosis of terminal illness. CONCLUSIONS: Humor plays an unquestionable role in palliative care, but its use needs training and appropriate use.
Subject(s)
Complementary Therapies/methods , Health Personnel/psychology , Hospice and Palliative Care Nursing/methods , Laughter Therapy , Palliative Care/methods , Quality of Life/psychology , Terminal Care/methods , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Attitude of Health Personnel , Female , Humans , Male , Middle AgedABSTRACT
PURPOSES: Dyspnea as refractory symptom leading to sedation at the end of life and the place of death. Survival study in population with dyspnea. METHODS: Longitudinal study of terminally ill patients in a year (n = 195). We divided populations as (a) population with dyspnea: prevalent and incident dyspnea and (b) population without dyspnea. We used the statistical program Stata9 (Kaplan-Meier and Cox logistic regression models). RESULTS: The probability of being sedated was 5 times higher in population with dyspnea. Dying in hospital odds ratio was 2.13 in patients with dyspnea. The average survival time was 52 days in patients with dyspnea and 69 in non-dyspnea patients. The average survival was similar between both groups. Patients with incident dyspnea showed a higher average survival than those with prevalent dyspnea. CONCLUSIONS: The connection between dyspnea and sedation was clearly shown. There were significant differences between prevalent dyspnea and incident dyspnea groups.
