ReviewBMC palliative care2021
Evaluating the integration of palliative care in national health systems: an indicator rating process with EAPC task force members to measure advanced palliative care development.
Review in BMC palliative care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- A palliative care goals model for people with dementia and their family: Consensus achieved in an international Delphi study.Palliative medicine · 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
- Expert survey on coverage and characteristics of pediatric palliative care in Europe - a focus on home care.BMC palliative care · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPalliative care (PC) development cannot only be assessed from a specialized provision perspective. Recently, PC integration into other health systems has been identified as a component of specialized development. Yet, there is a lack of indicators to assess PC integration for pediatrics, long-term care facilities, primary care, volunteering and cardiology.
aimTo identify and design indicators capable of exploring national-level integration of PC into the areas mentioned above.
methodsA process composed of a desk literature review, consultation and semi-structured interviews with EAPC task force members and a rating process was performed to create a list of indicators for the assessment of PC integration into pediatrics, long-term care facilities, primary care, cardiology, and volunteering. The new indicators were mapped onto the four domains of the WHO Public Health Strategy.
resultsThe literature review identified experts with whom 11 semi-structured interviews were conducted. A total of 34 new indicators were identified for national-level monitoring of palliative care integration. Ten were for pediatrics, five for primary care, six for long-term care facilities, seven for volunteering, and six for cardiology. All indicators mapped onto the WHO domains of policy and education while only pediatrics had an indicator that mapped onto the domain of services. No indicators mapped onto the domain of use of medicines.
conclusionMeaningful contributions are being made in Europe towards the integration of PC into the explored fields. These efforts should be assessed in future regional mapping studies using indicators to deliver a more complete picture of PC development.
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.