Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29514620›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2018

Palliative care in the home: a scoping review of study quality, primary outcomes, and thematic component analysis.

Mark Hofmeister, Ally Memedovich, Laura E Dowsett, Laura Sevick, Tamara McCarron, Eldon Spackman, Tania Stafinski, Devidas Menon, Tom Noseworthy, Fiona Clement

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mark HofmeisterDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Teaching Research and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada.
Ally MemedovichDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Teaching Research and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada.
Laura E DowsettDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Teaching Research and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada.
Laura SevickDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Teaching Research and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada.
Tamara McCarronDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Teaching Research and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada.
Eldon SpackmanDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Teaching Research and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada.
Tania StafinskiSchool of Public Health, University of Alberta, 3-300 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405-87 Ave, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Devidas MenonSchool of Public Health, University of Alberta, 3-300 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405-87 Ave, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Tom NoseworthyDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Teaching Research and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada.
Fiona ClementDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Teaching Research and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada. fclement@ucalgary.ca.
University of Calgary · CAUniversity of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of palliative care is to improve the quality of life of patients and families through the prevention and relief of suffering. Frequently, patients may choose to receive palliative care in the home. The objective of this paper is to summarize the quality and primary outcomes measured within the palliative care in the home literature. This will synthesize the current state of the literature and inform future work.

methodsA scoping review was completed using PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit, PsycINFO, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database were searched from inception to August 2016. Inclusion criteria included: 1) care was provided in the "home of the patient" as defined by the study, 2) outcomes were reported, and 3) reported original data. Thematic component analysis was completed to categorize interventions.

resultsFifty-three studies formed the final data set. The literature varied extensively. Five themes were identified: accessibility of healthcare, caregiver support, individualized patient centered care, multidisciplinary care provision, and quality improvement. Primary outcomes were resource use, symptom burden, quality of life, satisfaction, caregiver distress, place of death, cost analysis, or described experiences. The majority of studies were of moderate or unclear quality.

conclusionsThere is robust literature of varying quality, assessing different components of palliative care in the home interventions, and measuring different outcomes. To be meaningful to patients, these interventions need to be consistently evaluated with outcomes that matter to patients. Future research could focus on reaching a consensus for outcomes to evaluate palliative care in the home interventions.

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePalliative CareQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID29514620
PMCPMC5842572
OpenAlexW2796241330

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.