?
Паллиативная помощь в восприятии населения: результаты всероссийского опроса
The aim of this study is to identify key features of public perceptions of palliative care, including levels of awareness, attitudes toward the possibility of receiving palliative care, experiences of interaction with the palliative care system, as well as perceptions of the roles of various institutional actors involved in its provision. The empirical basis of the study consists of data from a nationwide online survey conducted in 2025 by the Center for Studies of Civil Society and the Nonprofit Sector (HSE University, Moscow) based on a representative sample of urban and rural residents aged 18 and older (N = 2007). The findings show that 21% of respondents report being well informed about palliative care, 45% have heard something about it, and 34% learned about it for the first time during the survey. Among respondents who were aware of palliative care, 47% know where to seek such care, 34% are uncertain about their knowledge, and 19% are unaware of possible channels of access. Attitudes toward the possibility of receiving palliative care are predominantly positive: 89% of respondents familiar with palliative care expressed a definitely or rather positive attitude. Over the past year, 7% of respondents had direct experience with palliative care, and 72% of them assessed this experience positively. Nevertheless, only 10% of respondents believe that palliative care in Russia is currently in good condition. According to respondents, the primary role in the provision of palliative care should be assigned to public healthcare institutions (75%); however, only 41% recognize their actual involvement. The participation of nonprofit organizations (medical and charitable) in the provision of palliative care is considered necessary by 20-22% of respondents, whereas their real involvement is reported by only 10-13%. The study reveals a high level of public support for the idea of palliative care alongside a certain deficit of public awareness and a gap between the expected and perceived contributions of key institutional actors.