Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28526095›Full record

SynthesisBMC palliative care2017

Improving hospital-based end of life care processes and outcomes: a systematic review of research output, quality and effectiveness.

Amy Waller, Natalie Dodd, Martin H N Tattersall, Balakrishnan Nair, Rob Sanson-Fisher

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC palliative care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Quality versus quantity in end-of-life choices of cancer patients and support persons: a discrete choice experiment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Article
  9. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amy WallerPriority Research Centre in Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia. amy.waller@newcastle.edu.au.
Natalie DoddPriority Research Centre in Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Martin H N TattersallUniversity of Sydney, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Level 6 North, Missenden Road, Camperdown, 2050, Australia.
Balakrishnan NairFaculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Rob Sanson-FisherPriority Research Centre in Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
University of Newcastle Australia · AUChris O’Brien Lifehouse · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs in other areas of health delivery, there is a need to ensure that end-of-life care is guided by patient centred research. A systematic review was undertaken to examine the quantity and quality of data-based research aimed at improving the (a) processes and (b) outcomes associated with delivering end-of-life care in hospital settings.

methodsMedline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched between 1995 and 2015 for data-based papers. Eligible papers were classified as descriptive, measurement or intervention studies. Intervention studies were categorised according to whether the primary aim was to improve: (a) end of life processes (i.e. end-of-life documentation and discussions, referrals); or (b) end-of-life outcomes (i.e. perceived quality of life, health status, health care use, costs). Intervention studies were assessed against the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care methodological criteria for research design, and their effectiveness examined.

resultsA total of 416 papers met eligibility criteria. The number increased by 13% each year (p < 0.001). Most studies were descriptive (n = 351, 85%), with fewer measurement (n = 17) and intervention studies (n = 48; 10%). Only 18 intervention studies (4%) met EPOC design criteria. Most reported benefits for end-of-life processes including end-of-life discussions and documentation (9/11). Impact on end-of-life outcomes was mixed, with some benefit for psychosocial distress, satisfaction and concordance in care (3/7).

conclusionMore methodologically robust studies are needed to evaluate the impact of interventions on end-of-life processes, including whether changes in processes translate to improved end-of-life outcomes. Interventions which target both the patient and substitute decision maker in an effort to achieve these changes would be beneficial.

Indexed as

HumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareProgram EvaluationQuality of Health CareResearchTerminal CareAcute careAdvance care planningEnd-of-lifeHospitalPalliative care

Identifiers

PMID28526095
PMCPMC5438503
OpenAlexW2615230656

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.