Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27553776›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2016

Patients' perceptions of palliative care quality in hospice inpatient care, hospice day care, palliative units in nursing homes, and home care: a cross-sectional study.

Tuva Sandsdalen, Vigdis Abrahamsen Grøndahl, Reidun Hov, Sevald Høye, Ingrid Rystedt, Bodil Wilde-Larsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

6 authors.

Tuva SandsdalenDepartment of Health Studies, Faculty of Public Health, Hedmark University of Applied Sciences, Postbox 400, 2418, Elverum, Norway. Tuva.Sandsdalen@hihm.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6699-8059
Vigdis Abrahamsen GrøndahlFaculty of Health and Social Studies, Østfold University College, Postbox 700, 1757, Halden, Norway.
Reidun HovDepartment of Health Studies, Faculty of Public Health, Hedmark University of Applied Sciences, Postbox 400, 2418, Elverum, Norway.
Sevald HøyeDepartment of Health Studies, Faculty of Public Health, Hedmark University of Applied Sciences, Postbox 400, 2418, Elverum, Norway.
Ingrid RystedtDepartment of Health Science, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology, Discipline of Nursing Science, Karlstad University, 651 88, Karlstad, Sweden.
Bodil Wilde-LarssonDepartment of Health Studies, Faculty of Public Health, Hedmark University of Applied Sciences, Postbox 400, 2418, Elverum, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients' perceptions of care quality within and across settings are important for the further development of palliative care. The aim was to investigate patients' perceptions of palliative care quality within settings, including perceptions of care received and their subjective importance, and contrast palliative care quality across settings.

methodA cross-sectional study including 191 patients in late palliative phase (73 % response rate) admitted to hospice inpatient care, hospice day care, palliative units in nursing homes, and home care was conducted, using the Quality from the Patients' Perspective instrument-palliative care (QPP-PC). QPP-PC comprises four dimensions and 12 factors; "medical-technical competence" (MT) (2 factors), "physical-technical conditions" (PT) (one factor), "identity-orientation approach" (ID) (4 factors), "sociocultural atmosphere" (SC) (5 factors), and three single items (S); medical care, personal hygiene and atmosphere. Data were analysed using paired-samples t-test and analysis of covariance while controlling for differences in patient characteristics.

resultsPatients' perceptions of care received within settings showed high scores for the factors and single items "honesty" (ID) and "atmosphere" (S) in all settings and low scores for "exhaustion" (MT) in three out of four settings. Patients' perceptions of importance scored high for "medical care" (S), "honesty" (ID), "respect and empathy" (ID) and "atmosphere" (S) in all settings. No aspects of care scored low in all settings. Importance scored higher than perceptions of care received, in particular for receiving information. Patients' perceptions of care across settings differed, with highest scores in hospice inpatient care for the dimensions; ID, SC, and "medical care" (S), the SC and "atmosphere" (S) for hospice day care, and "medical care" (S) for palliative units in nursing homes. There were no differences in subjective importance across settings.

conclusionStrengths of services related to identity-orientation approach and a pleasant and safe atmosphere. Key areas for improvement related to receiving information. Perceptions of subjective importance did not differ across settings, but perceptions of care received scored higher in more care areas for hospice inpatient care, than in other settings. Further studies are needed to support these findings, to investigate why perceptions of care differ across settings and to highlight what can be learned from settings receiving high scores.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthQuality of Health CareAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmyotrophic Lateral SclerosisClinical CompetenceCross-Sectional StudiesDay Care, MedicalEmpathyFemaleHeart FailureHome Care ServicesHospice CareHospicesHospitalizationPalliative carePatient perceptionQuality from the patients’ perspective instrument specific to palliative care (QPP-PC)Quality from the patients’ perspective questionnaire (QPP)Quality of healthcare

Identifiers

PMID27553776
PMCPMC4995801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.