Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30736788›Full record

SynthesisBMC palliative care2019

What do patients and family-caregivers value from hospice care? A systematic mixed studies review.

Nicole Marie Hughes, Jane Noyes, Lindsay Eckley, Trystan Pritchard

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC palliative care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Predicting hospice eligibility among dementia patients using language models.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Functioning of Hospice in the Perception of Family Members of Cancer Surgery and Hospice Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Hospice Care Preferences and Its Associated Factors among Community-Dwelling Residents in China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  18. The quality of end of life care for Danish cancer patients who have received specialized palliative: a national survey using the Danish version of VOICES-SF.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    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

4 authors.

Nicole Marie HughesSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, North Wales, LL57 2DG, UK. sop80c@bangor.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9260-4869
Jane NoyesSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, North Wales, LL57 2DG, UK.
Lindsay EckleyPresent address: North of England Zoological Society (Chester Zoo), Caughall Road, Chester, UK.
Trystan PritchardSt Davids Hospice, Llandudno, North Wales, UK.

Funding

Knowledge Economy Skills Scholarship (KESS) C80815
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is not known which attributes of care are valued the most by those who experience hospice services. Such knowledge is integral to service development as it facilitates opportunities for continuous improvement of hospice care provision. The objectives of this mixed-studies systematic review were to explore patients' and their family carer views and experiences, to determine what they valued about adult hospice care in the UK.

methodsASSIA, PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched from inception, up until March 2017 to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies. Four additional searching techniques supplemented the main search and grey literature was included. A three-stage mixed-method systematic review was conducted with a sequential exploratory design. Thematic synthesis was used with qualitative data, followed by a narrative summary of the quantitative data. The qualitative and quantitative syntheses were then juxtaposed within a matrix to produce an overarching synthesis.

resultsThirty-four studies highlighted that what patients and carers valued was generally context specific and stemmed from an amalgamation of hospice service components, which both individually and collectively contributed to improvements in quality of life. When the syntheses of qualitative and quantitative studies were viewed in isolation, the value placed on services remained relatively consistent, with some discrepancies evident in service availability. These were commonly associated with geographical variations, as well as differences in service models and timeframes. Through an overarching synthesis of the qualitative and quantitative evidence, however, notable variations and a more nuanced account of what people valued and why were more prominent, specifically in relation to a lack of social support for carers, disparate access to essential services, the underrepresentation of patients with a non-cancer diagnosis, and the dissatisfaction with the range of services provided.

conclusionReview findings strengthen the existing evidence base and illuminates the underpinning elements of hospice care most valued by patients and their families. With large disparities in the availability of services, however, the underrepresentation of patients with non-malignant diseases and the limited evidence base demonstrating the adequate addressment of the social needs of carers, there continues to be considerable gaps that warrants further research.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthAdultBereavementCaregiversDelivery of Health CareFood SupplyHospice CareHumansPatient Education as TopicPatient ParticipationPatient SatisfactionProfessional-Patient RelationsQuality of Health CareQuality of LifeRespite CareSocial SupportCarerFamilyHospicePalliative carePatientSystematic reviewValue, quality of life

Identifiers

PMID30736788
PMCPMC6368799

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.