Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25991565›Full record

SynthesisBMJ supportive & palliative care2016

The preferences and perspectives of family caregivers towards place of care for their relatives at the end-of-life. A systematic review and thematic synthesis of the qualitative evidence.

Caroline Woodman, Jessica Baillie, Stephanie Sivell

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ supportive & palliative care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Hospital at home: home-based end-of-life care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Hospital at home: home-based end-of-life care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Caroline WoodmanCardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK.
Jessica BaillieSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Stephanie SivellMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Institute of Cancer and Genetics, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK.

Funding

Marie Curie MCCC-FCO-11-C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHome is often reported as the preferred place of care for patients at the end-of-life. The support of family caregivers is crucial if this is to be realised. However, little is known about their preferences; a greater understanding would identify how best to support families at the end-of-life, ensuring more patients are cared for in their preferred location.

objectivesTo systematically search and synthesise the qualitative literature exploring the preferences and perspectives of family caregivers towards place of care for their relatives at the end-of-life.

methodsTen databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, AMED, ASSIA, CINAHL, Social Care Online, Cochrane Database, Scopus, Web of Science) and reference lists of key journals were searched up to January 2014. Included studies were appraised for quality and data thematically synthesised.

resultsEighteen studies were included; all were of moderate or high quality. Two main themes were identified: (1) Preferences and perspectives: most family caregivers preferred home care, although a range of perspectives were reported. Both positive and negative perspectives of home, hospices and hospitals emerged. At times, family caregivers reported feeling obligated to provide home care. (2) Impact of facilitating home care; both positive and negative effects on family caregivers were reported.

conclusionsMany family caregivers reported home as the preferred place of care; other places of care were infrequently considered. Healthcare professionals and service providers should be aware of these preferences and provide support where needed to enable family caregivers to successfully care at home, thus improving end-of-life experiences for families as a whole.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient PreferenceCaregiversHome Care ServicesHospicesHumansPalliative CareQualitative ResearchTerminal CareEnd-of-life preferencesFamily caregivingHome carePalliative careSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID25991565
PMCPMC5256384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.