Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30943951›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2019

Recommendations on priorities for integrated palliative care: transparent expert consultation with international leaders for the InSuP-C project.

Sheila Payne, Sean Hughes, Joann Wilkinson, Jeroen Hasselaar, Nancy Preston

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Sheila PayneInternational Observatory on End of Life Care, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, UK. s.a.payne@lancaster.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6982-9181
Sean HughesInternational Observatory on End of Life Care, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, UK.
Joann WilkinsonInternational Observatory on End of Life Care, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, UK.
Jeroen HasselaarDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Nancy PrestonInternational Observatory on End of Life Care, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, UK.

Funding

European Commission FP7 335555
6 · The paper itself

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

Referral and ConsultationDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedExpert TestimonyHumansInternationalityPalliative CareQuality of LifeConsensusIntegratedInternational surveyPalliative care

Identifiers

PMID30943951
PMCPMC6448308

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.