ArticleBMC palliative care2020
The views of physicians and nurses on the potentials of an electronic assessment system for recognizing the needs of patients in palliative care.
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 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementing patient-centred outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice. An updated systematic review of facilitators and barriers.BMC palliative care · 2026Pooled it
- Self-care towards the end of life: A systematic review and narrative synthesis on access, quality and cost.Palliative medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Measurement equivalence of the paper-based and electronic version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS): A randomised crossover trial.Palliative medicine · 2023Trial
- Patients' and healthcare providers' perceptions in outpatient palliative cancer care services at a tertiary care hospital in Sri Lanka: prospects for adoption of a digital health intervention.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Patients' experiences of responding to a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for palliative care: a mixed method study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- 'It is important to feel invited': what patients require when using the Utrecht Symptom Diary - 4 Dimensional, a qualitative exploration.Palliative care and social practice · 2024Article
- Exploring the Potential of Chatbots in Critical Care Nephrology.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Impacts of Symptom Checkers for Laypersons' Self-diagnosis on Physicians in Primary Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Feasibility, use and benefits of patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care units: a multicentre observational study.BMC palliative care · 2023Observational
- State-wide implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in specialized outpatient palliative care teams (ELSAH): A mixed-methods evaluation and implications for their sustainable use.BMC palliative care · 2022Article
- Integrating patient- and caregiver-reported outcome measures into the daily care routines of specialised outpatient palliative care: a qualitative study (ELSAH) on feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness.BMC palliative care · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPatients in oncological and palliative care (PC) often have complex needs, which require a comprehensive treatment approach. The assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to improve identification of patient needs and foster adjustment of treatment. This study explores occupational routines, attitudes and expectations of physicians and nurses with regards to a planned electronic assessment system of PROs.
methodsTen physicians and nine nurses from various PC settings in Southern Germany were interviewed. The interviews were analysed with qualitative content analysis.
resultsThe interviewees were sceptical about the quality of data generated through a patient self-assessment system. They criticised the rigidity of the electronic assessment questionnaire, which the interviewees noted may not fit the profile of all palliative patients. They feared the loss of personal contact between medical staff and patients and favoured in-person conversation and on-site observations on site over the potential system. Interviewees saw potential in being able to discover unseen needs from some patients. Interviewees evaluated the system positively in the case that the system served to broadly orient care plans without affecting or reducing the patient-caregiver relationship.
conclusionsA significant portion of the results touch upon the symbolic acceptance of the suggested system, which stands for an increasing standardisation and technisation of medicine where interpersonal contact and the professional expertise are marginalized. The study results can provide insight for processes and communication in the run-up to and during the implementation of electronic assessment systems.
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.