ArticleJournal of palliative medicine2016
A Qualitative Inquiry on Palliative and End-of-Life Care Policy Reform.
Article in Journal of palliative medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- End-of-life health literacy, knowledge and behaviours towards advance care planning among older adults: cross-sectional evidence from Switzerland.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- Identifying Healthcare Professional Roles in Developing Palliative Care: A Mixed Method.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Lack of Awareness and Common Misconceptions About Palliative Care Among Adults: Insights from a National Survey.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Article
- Palliative care as an emerging role for respiratory health professionals: Findings from a cross-sectional, exploratory Canadian survey.Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is increasing recognition of the role of palliative care (PC) in health care delivery, but priorities for state and federal policy to support PC are unclear and have sometimes engendered controversy. We canvassed experts to shed light on general recommendations for improving PC.
objectiveThe study objective was to identify challenges to and potential solutions for promoting, adopting, and implementing policies that would support or expand high-quality PC.
methodsSemistructured telephone interviews were used to solicit challenges to and potential solutions for promoting, adopting, and implementing policies that would support or expand high-quality PC. Interviews were analyzed using qualitative methods. The subjects were a purposive sample of 22 professional state and federal-level advocates who work in the field of aging and/or PC.
resultsRespondents identified four central challenges to advancing PC policies: (1) knowledge about PC in the health care setting, (2) cultural beliefs about PC, (3) payment/reimbursement for PC services, and (4) public understanding of PC. Of the wide range of solutions proposed by respondents, we present the eight most frequently discussed solutions to these challenges targeted towards policymakers, health care professionals, research, and the general public. Respondents' understanding of the relationships between problems and solutions revealed many dependencies and interconnectedness.
conclusionsA qualitative approach of querying experts identified multiple significant challenges to improving and expanding PC, most of which are acknowledged in existing consensus statements. Proposed solutions were more numerous and diffuse than descriptions of the problems, signaling the need for further consensus building around actionable policy, and better understanding of how to advance a PC policy agenda.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.