Dataset for attitude and education needs of emergency doctors in providing palliative and end-of-life care in Hong Kong: A prospective cross-sectional analysis based on self-reported surveys.
This dataset was generated by administration of a validated questionnaire, an overseas palliative and EOL care study and local expert opinions. Permissions for using the context of the questionnaire and the overseas study had been obtained from the authors. For the content of the questionnaire, apart from the baseline characteristics of the participants (Part A, question 1-9), 2 main dimensions were assessed in the survey including their attitude in providing palliative and EOL care (Part B, question 10-24 (15 statements)), and their education needs (Part C, questions 25-35 (11 items). The participants were asked about their overall attitude in providing palliative and EOL care in their AED. The statements in Part B would be divided into 4 domains, including the role of palliative and EOL care (statements 1-3,6,7), specific obstacles (statements 4,8,9,11-14), the comfort level with palliative and EOL care (statements 5 and 10) and overall impression towards palliative and EOL care (statement 15). Instrument reliability and validity The content validity of the questionnaire was done by Rivera et al. We sought opinion from a panel of experts, including three experienced emergency physicians and a palliative medicine specialist, for grammar, syntax, organization and appropriateness. The questionnaire was then modified according to their comments. Scoring Method There were 5 Likert scale options for each questions in Part B and Part C of the questionnaire, which included strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. Besides, the participants were invited to indicate on which topics they would like to have further education on palliative and EOL care. Method of questionnaire administration Hard copies of the questionnaire were distributed by the investigators through direct personal invitation. Consent was implied when the questionnaire was returned. i.e. informed consent was implied if the participants returned the completed questionnaire to the investigators in the sealed envelope provided. No personal identifying data was collected so as to maintain anonymity. The data access was restricted to the investigators only