Facilitators and Barriers to Volunteers' Involvement in Palliative Care: A Qualitative Meta-Synthesis.

Yuxuan Zhang; Wei Zhao; Hui Zhang; Yuqing Dai; Zixuan Liu; Yu Sheng

doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2026.06.011

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42285425

Facilitators and Barriers to Volunteers' Involvement in Palliative Care: A Qualitative Meta-Synthesis.

Yuxuan Zhang·Wei Zhao·Hui Zhang·Yuqing Dai·Zixuan Liu·Yu Sheng

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically synthesize qualitative evidence on facilitators and barriers to volunteer involvement in palliative care services, providing insights to inform strategies for strengthening volunteer support systems. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Medline, EBSCO, ProQuest, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, VIP, and Sinomed were searched from inception to December 2025 to identify qualitative studies examining factors influencing volunteer participation in palliative care. Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. Data were analyzed using Thomas and Harden's thematic synthesis approach and managed using NVivo 12.0 software, following the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) guidelines. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies involving 1042 participants were included, yielding 68 findings. Facilitators included intrinsic motivation and meaning-making at the individual level; supportive relationships and teamwork at the interpersonal level; structured support and professional recognition at the organizational level; social recognition and resource integration at the community level; and institutional safeguards and governmental incentives at the policy level. Barriers included emotional burden and limited competencies at the individual level; relationship conflicts and insufficient collaboration at the interpersonal level; management deficiencies at the organizational level; community resource imbalances at the community level; and inadequate regulations and incentives at the policy level. CONCLUSION: Volunteer participation in palliative care is influenced by multiple interacting factors. Strengthening training and support systems, enhancing team collaboration, and improving institutional frameworks may help sustain volunteer engagement and improve the quality of palliative care services.

Explore related subjects

Palliative Care Humans Volunteers Qualitative Research Motivation barrier factors facilitating factors meta-synthesis palliative care qualitative research Journal Article Review Systematic Review

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Yuxuan Zhang, Wei Zhao, Hui Zhang, Yuqing Dai, Zixuan Liu, Yu Sheng. 2026-06-12. Facilitators and Barriers to Volunteers' Involvement in Palliative Care: A Qualitative Meta-Synthesis.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2026.06.011

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Humans subject Journal Article subject Motivation subject Systematic reviews study meta-synthesis subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Continuous Intravenous Lidocaine for Refractory Cancer Pain in Palliative Care: A Multicenter Feasibility Study.

ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility and tolerability of continuous low-dose intravenous lidocaine infusion in patients with opioid-refractory cancer pain receiving palliative care, and to explore its potential impact on pain outcomes in real-world clinical conditions.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled feasibility study in palliative care units to evaluate continuous intravenous lidocaine infusion in patients with opioid-refractory cancer pain. Patients were randomized to receive lidocaine (5 mg/kg/day, increased to 8 mg/kg/day if pain reduction was <30% after 24 h) or placebo for 48 h. Pain intensity was assessed using the Numeric Pain Intensity Scale, with a clinically meaningful response defined as a ≥30% reduction from baseline at 40 min. Secondary outcomes included pain evolution over time, neuropathic pain, symptom burden, and tolerability.ResultsThirty-five patients were included in the final analysis (18 lidocaine, 17 placebo). No significant difference was observed between lidocaine and placebo for the primary endpoint or for secondary pain outcomes. Reductions in pain intensity were observed in both groups. In the lidocaine group, 61% of patients required dose escalation to 8 mg/kg/day. Continuous intravenous lidocaine infusion was generally well tolerated, with mostly mild adverse events and no unexpected toxicity.ConclusionIn this multicenter feasibility study, continuous low-dose intravenous lidocaine did not demonstrate a clinically meaningful analgesic benefit over placebo. As the planned sample size was not reached, the study was underpowered. These findings highlight the challenges of randomized trials in palliative care and may inform future feasibility-oriented designs.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effect of Narrative-Based Palliative Care on Psychological Stress, Quality of Life, and End-of-Life Acceptance in Elderly Terminal Cancer Patients and Their Families.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to preliminarily evaluate the impacts of narrative-based palliative care on psychological stress, end-of-life acceptance, and quality of life in elderly terminally ill cancer patients and their family caregivers.MethodsThis single-center, small-sample randomized controlled study enrolled 50 elderly terminal cancer patients. Patients were randomly assigned to either the observation group or the control group (n = 25 each). The observation group received narrative-based palliative care, while the control group received routine standard care. Family psychological stress was assessed using the Relative Stress Scale (RSS), and patients' perceived stress was evaluated with the Perceived Stress Scale-10 (PSS-10). Caregiver satisfaction was measured using a hospital-developed questionnaire. Patients' quality of life was evaluated using the SF-36, Chinese Version of the Death Attitude Profile (DAP-C), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), respectively.ResultsBaseline characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups (P > .05). Post-intervention, the observation group demonstrated significantly lower psychological stress among family members and higher caregiver satisfaction (P < .05). Patients in the observation group reported better quality of life, improved sleep, and greater acceptance of death than those in the control group (P < .05).ConclusionAs a small-sample, single-center study, these findings offer preliminary evidence that narrative-based palliative care may reduce psychological stress in elderly terminal cancer patients and caregivers while enhancing patients' quality of life, sleep quality, and acceptance of death. However, the limited sample size, single-site design, and narrow inclusion criteria restrict generalizability. Larger multicenter trials are needed to confirm these results.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Access to palliative care in rural settings: A mixed-methods systematic review.

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.

Health Services Accessibility↗