Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30458718›Full record

Observational studyBMC family practice2018

Primary palliative care team perspectives on coordinating and managing people with advanced cancer in the community: a qualitative study.

Julia Hackett, Lucy Ziegler, Mary Godfrey, Robbie Foy, Michael I Bennett

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Equitable inclusion of patients with cancer on the palliative care register: a systematic review in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Organization of Home Palliative Cancer Care by Primary Health Care: A Systematic Review Protocol.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Julia HackettMartin House Research Centre, Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. julia.hackett@york.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-1720-6665
Lucy ZieglerAcademic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Level 10 Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, UK.
Mary GodfreyAcademic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Temple Bank House, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Duckworth Lane, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK.
Robbie FoyAcademic Unit of Primary Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Level 10 Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, UK.
Michael I BennettAcademic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Level 10 Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-DG-1108-10010Department of Health RP-PG-0610-10114
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary health care teams are key to the delivery of care for patients with advanced cancer during the last year of life. The Gold Standards Framework is proposed as a mechanism for coordinating and guiding identification, assessment, and support. There are still considerable variations in practice despite its introduction. The aim of this qualitative study is to improve understanding of variations in practice through exploring the perspectives and experiences of members of primary health care teams involved in the care of patients with advanced cancer.

methodsQualitative, semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and non-participatory observations involving 67 members of primary health care teams providing palliative care. Data were analysed using a grounded theory approach.

resultsWe identified distinct differences in the drivers and barriers of community advanced cancer care coordination, which relate to identification and management, and access to effective pain management, and go some way to understanding variations in practice. These include proactive identification processes, time and resource pressures, unclear roles and responsibilities, poor multidisciplinary working, and inflexible models for referral and prescribing. These provide valuable insight into how professionals work together and independently within an infrastructure that can both support and hinder the provision of effective community palliative care.

conclusionsWhilst the GSF is a guide for good practice, alone it is not a mechanism for change. Rather it provides a framework for describing quality of practice that was already occurring. Consequently, there will continue to be variations in practice.

Indexed as

Qualitative ResearchDelivery of Health CareHumansMorbidityNeoplasmsPalliative CareUnited KingdomGold standards frameworkPalliative carePatient carePrimary careQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID30458718
PMCPMC6247763

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.