Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objectives To explore the expressions of gratitude (EoG) received from patients and relatives and their influence on palliative care professionals (PCPs).
Methods A national online survey was sent to a representative of PCPs of each service listed in the national directory of palliative care (PC) services (n=272) (ie, hospital PC support team, hospice, paediatrics, etc). The questionnaire was pilot tested with experts. It comprised three sections: the overall perspective of receiving gratitude in the service, the personal experience of its influence and sociodemographic questions. A mailing schedule was designed to enhance the response rate.
Results 186 representatives from all over Spain completed the questionnaire (68% response rate). 79% of service representatives reported that they almost always received EoG. These came mainly from families (93%). These EoG were very often put on display (84%) and shared with other health professionals (HPs) involved in care (45%). EoG evoked positive feelings in the team members. Based on their experience, respondents attributed different functions to these EoG: increased professional satisfaction (89%), a source of support in difficult times (89%), mood improvement, encouragement to continue and rewards for effort (88%). Services, where gratitude was more frequently received, were associated with PCPs who more frequently reported being proud of their work (p=0.039, Pearson’s correlation test).
Conclusions Gratitude from patients and relatives was frequent and significant to those who work in PC. HPs considered that EoG offer multiple beneficial effects and also a protective role in their practice against distress and an increase in resilience skills.
- Gratitude
- palliative care
- relatives
- satisfaction
- resilience
- health professionals
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Footnotes
Contributors All the authors meet the conditions of all of these points: All of them made a substantial contribution to the concept or design of the work; or acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data, All of them drafted the article or revised it critically for important intellectual content, All of them approved the version to be published, All of them have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.