Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33775169›Full record

ReviewPalliative medicine2021

Missing the human connection: A rapid appraisal of healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of providing palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lucy Mitchinson, Anna Dowrick, Caroline Buck, Katarina Hoernke, Sam Martin, Samantha Vanderslott, Hannah Robinson, Felicia Rankl, Louisa Manby, Sasha Lewis-Jackson and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Palliative medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
15.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Perspectives of Advance Care Planning for Latinos During COVID-19.The American journal of hospice & palliative care · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Lucy MitchinsonMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3648-2913
Anna DowrickInstitute of Population Health Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Caroline BuckInstitute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, University College London, London, UK.
Katarina HoernkeInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Sam MartinOxford Vaccine Group, Churchill Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Samantha VanderslottOxford Vaccine Group, Churchill Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Hannah RobinsonSchool for Policy Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences and Law, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Felicia RanklNuffield College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Louisa ManbyInstitute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, University College London, London, UK.
Sasha Lewis-JacksonDepartment of Targeted Intervention and Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL), University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6141-9399
Cecilia Vindrola-PadrosDepartment of Targeted Intervention and Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL), University College London, London, UK.
University College London · GBChurchill Hospital · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring infectious epidemics, healthcare workers are required to deliver traditional care while facing new pressures. Time and resource restrictions, a focus on saving lives and new safety measures can lead to traditional aspects of care delivery being neglected.

aimIdentify barriers to delivering end-of-life care, describe attempts to deliver care during the COVID-19 pandemic, and understand the impact this had on staff.

designA rapid appraisal was conducted incorporating a rapid review of policies from the United Kingdom, semi-structured telephone interviews with healthcare workers, and a review of mass print media news stories and social media posts describing healthcare worker's experiences of delivering care during the pandemic. Data were coded and analysed using framework analysis. SETTING/

participantsFrom a larger ongoing study, 22 interviews which mentioned death or caring for patients at end-of-life, eight government and National Health Service policies affecting end-of-life care delivery, eight international news media stories and 3440 publicly available social media posts were identified. The social media analysis centred around 274 original tweets with the highest reach, engagement and relevance. Incorporating multiple workstreams provided a broad perspective of end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom.

resultsThree themes were developed: (1) restrictions to traditional care, (2) striving for new forms of care and (3) establishing identity and resilience.

conclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic prohibited the delivery of traditional care as practical barriers restricted human connections. Staff prioritised communication and comfort orientated tasks to re-establish compassion at end-of-life and displayed resilience by adjusting their goals.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsHealth PersonnelHumansPalliative CarePerceptionSARS-CoV-2State MedicineUnited KingdomCOVID-19delivery of healthcarehealth personnelpalliative carequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID33775169
PMCPMC8114443
OpenAlexW3144418529

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.