ArticleBMC palliative care2019
Recommendations on priorities for integrated palliative care: transparent expert consultation with international leaders for the InSuP-C project.
Article 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 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defining palliative care service capability: a scoping review to support quality improvement and benchmarking.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Priority setting in dementia palliative care research for people living with dementia and carers: A mixed methods consensus study.Palliative care and social practice · 2025Article
- Addressing integration in the organization of palliative care in belgium: a multilevel ecosystems approach using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- Inclusion of palliative and end of life care in health strategies aimed at integrated care: a documentary analysis [version 2; peer review: 2 approved].AMRC open research · 2023Article
- Provision of palliative and end-of-life care in UK care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed methods observational study with implications for policy.Frontiers in public health · 2023Observational
- The impact of covid-19 on out-of-hours adult hospice care: an online survey.BMC palliative care · 2022Article
- Situational analysis of the quality of palliative care services across India: a cross-sectional survey.Ecancermedicalscience · 2022Article
- Predictors of the final place of care of patients with advanced cancer receiving integrated home-based palliative care: a retrospective cohort study.BMC palliative care · 2021Article
- Physicians' perceived barriers and proposed solutions for high-quality palliative care in dementia in the Netherlands: Qualitative analysis of survey data.The journal of nursing home research sciences · 2021Article
- Article
- The roles, responsibilities and practices of healthcare assistants in out-of-hours community palliative care: A systematic scoping review.Palliative medicine · 2020Article
- Disseminating research findings using a massive online open course for maximising impact and developing recommendations for practice.BMC palliative care · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organisation (WHO) endorses integrated palliative care which has a significant impact on quality of life and satisfaction with care. Effective integration between hospices, palliative care services, hospitals and primary care services are required to support patients with palliative care needs. Studies have indicated that little is known about which aspects are regarded as most important and should be priorities for international implementation. The Integrated Palliative Care in cancer and chronic conditions (InSup-C) project, aimed to investigate integrated practices in Europe and to formulate requirements for effective palliative care integration. It aimed to develop recommendations, and to agree priorities, for integrated palliative care linked to the InSuP-C project.
methodsTransparent expert consultation was adopted at the approach used. Data were collected in two phases: 1) international transparent expert consultation using face-to-face roundtable discussions at a one day workshop in Brussels, and 2) via subsequent online cross-sectional survey where items were rated to indicate degree of agreement on their importance and ranked to indicate priority for implementation. Workshop discussions used content analysis to develop a list of 23 recommendations, which formed the survey questionnaire. Survey analysis used descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis of open responses.
resultsThirty-six international experts in palliative care and cancer care, including senior clinicians, researchers, leaders of relevant international organisations and funders, were invited to a face-to-face workshop. Data were collected from 33 (19 men, 14 women), 3 declined. They mostly came from European countries (31), USA (1) and Australia (1). Twenty one of them also completed the subsequent online survey (response rate 63%). We generated 23 written statements that were grouped into the organisational constructs: macro (10), meso (6) and micro (7) levels of integration of palliative care. Highest priority recommendations refer to education, leadership and policy-making, medium priority recommendations focused on funding and relationship-building, and lower priority recommendations related to improving systems and infrastructure.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that amongst a group of international experts there was overall good agreement on the importance of recommendations for integrated palliative care. Understanding expert's priorities is important and can guide practice, policymaking and future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.