Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26346181›Full record

ArticlePalliative medicine2016

Defining consensus norms for palliative care of people with intellectual disabilities in Europe, using Delphi methods: A White Paper from the European Association of Palliative Care.

Irene Tuffrey-Wijne, Dorry McLaughlin, Leopold Curfs, Anne Dusart, Catherine Hoenger, Linda McEnhill, Sue Read, Karen Ryan, Daniel Satgé, Benjamin Straßer and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Palliative medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

12 authors at 9 institutions in 5 countries.

Irene Tuffrey-WijneFaculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St George's University of London, London, UK I.Tuffrey-Wijne@sgul.kingston.ac.uk.
Dorry McLaughlinQueen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Leopold CurfsGovernor Kremers Centre, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Anne DusartCentre Régional d'Études, Dijon, France.
Catherine HoengerService de la Santé Publique, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Linda McEnhillThe Prince & Princess of Wales Hospice, Glasgow, UK.
Sue ReadKeele University, Keele, UK.
Karen RyanMater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.
Daniel SatgéOncodefi, Montpellier, France.
Benjamin StraßerCaritas of the Diocese of Munich and Freising, Munich, Germany.
Britt-Evy WestergårdNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Ageing and Health, Tønsberg, Norway.
David OliverTizard Centre, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Caritas-Krankenhaus St. Josef · DEKeele University · GBMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLMater Misericordiae University Hospital · IEPrincess of Wales Hospital · GBQueen's University Belfast · GBService de la Santé Publique · CHSt George's, University of London · GBUniversity of Kent · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with intellectual disabilities often present with unique challenges that make it more difficult to meet their palliative care needs.

aimTo define consensus norms for palliative care of people with intellectual disabilities in Europe.

designDelphi study in four rounds: (1) a taskforce of 12 experts from seven European countries drafted the norms, based on available empirical knowledge and regional/national guidelines; (2) using an online survey, 34 experts from 18 European countries evaluated the draft norms, provided feedback and distributed the survey within their professional networks. Criteria for consensus were clearly defined; (3) modifications and recommendations were made by the taskforce; and (4) the European Association for Palliative Care reviewed and approved the final version. SETTING AND

participantsTaskforce members: identified through international networking strategies. Expert panel: a purposive sample identified through taskforce members' networks.

resultsA total of 80 experts from 15 European countries evaluated 52 items within the following 13 norms: equity of access, communication, recognising the need for palliative care, assessment of total needs, symptom management, end-of-life decision making, involving those who matter, collaboration, support for family/carers, preparing for death, bereavement support, education/training and developing/managing services. None of the items scored less than 86% agreement, making a further round unnecessary. In light of respondents' comments, several items were modified and one item was deleted.

conclusionThis White Paper presents the first guidance for clinical practice, policy and research related to palliative care for people with intellectual disabilities based on evidence and European consensus, setting a benchmark for changes in policy and practice.

Indexed as

ConsensusIntellectual DisabilityPalliative CareAdvisory CommitteesDelphi TechniqueEuropeHumansQuality of Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesTerminally Illaccess and evaluationconsensusend of lifehealth-care qualityintellectual disabilitiesPalliative care

Identifiers

PMID26346181
PMCPMC4838171
OpenAlexW1940026897

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.