ArticleBMC palliative care2020
Who needs and continues to need paediatric palliative care? An evaluation of utility and feasibility of the Paediatric Palliative Screening scale (PaPaS).
Article in BMC palliative care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current situation, challenges and future trends of pediatric palliative care from a multi-dimensional perspective: a narrative review.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
- Identifying palliative care needs in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: validation of the Chinese paediatric palliative screening scale (C-PaPaS).BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Assessing the palliative care needs of children with cancer and their families in tertiary care centres in India: A multicentre observational study.Palliative care and social practice · 2026Article
- Palineo score: development of a score to identify the palliative care needs of neonatal patients admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit.Critical care science · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators influencing referral and access to palliative care for children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions: a scoping review of the evidence.Palliative medicine · 2024Article
- Is it early enough? The authentic meaning of the pediatric palliative approach between early and late referral in pediatric oncology: a case study.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Assessing Awareness and Palliative Care Needs in Rural Haryana, North India: A Community-Based Study.Cureus · 2023Article
- Understanding pediatric palliative care within interdisciplinary palliative programs: a qualitative study.BMC palliative care · 2023Article
- Building capability in paediatric palliative care and enhancing education through the voice of parents: the Quality of Care Collaborative Australia.Palliative care and social practice · 2022Article
- Paediatric palliative screening scale as a useful tool for clinicians' assessment of palliative care needs of pediatric patients: a retrospective cohort study.BMC palliative care · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile the populations of children who can benefit from paediatric palliative care (PPC) have been broadly defined, identifying individual patients to receive PPC has been problematic in practice. The Paediatric Palliative Screening scale (PaPaS) is a multi-dimensional tool that assesses palliative care needs in children and families to facilitate timely referrals. This study evaluates its use to manage new referrals and ongoing review of patients receiving home-based PPC in Singapore.
methodsUsing a retrospective cohort study design, 199 patients admitted to receive PPC via clinician screening were scored using PaPaS. Eighty-four patients in two groups were scored again at one of two following milestones: one-year service continuation mark or point of discharge before a year. Accuracy measures were compared against clinical assessment.
results96.98% of patients scored 15 and above on admission (indicating need for PPC). Patients assessed at following milestones were effectively stratified; those who continued to receive service after 1 year scored significantly higher (M = 19.23) compared to those who were discharged within a year (M = 7.86). Sensitivity and specificity for PaPaS were calculated at 82.54 and 100% respectively. Overall congruence with clinician-based decisions supports the utility of PaPaS as a screening tool in PPC. Recommendations to improve the scale further are proposed.
conclusionThe PaPaS is a practical screening tool that signposts PPC needs within the clinical setting. This facilitates early referrals to PPC, without having to specify individual prognoses that are often uncertain. Other benefits include optimised continuity of care and implications for resource allocation.
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.