ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Computer Screening to Support Decision-Making about Use of Palliative Care Registers in Primary Care: GP Think Aloud and Patient and Carer Interviews.
Article in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Equitable inclusion of patients with cancer on the palliative care register: a systematic review in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- Understanding patient views and experiences of the IDENTIfication of PALLiative care needs (IDENTI-PALL): a qualitative interview study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to understand factors that influence general practitioner (GP) use of automated computer screening to identify patients for the palliative care register (PCR) and the experiences of palliative care and this emerging technology from patients' and carers' perspectives.
methodsA computer screening program electronically searches primary care records in routine clinical practice to identify patients with advanced illness who are not already on a PCR. Five GPs were asked to "think aloud" about adding patients identified by computer screening to the PCR. Key informant interviews with 6 patients on the PCR and 4 carers about their experiences of palliative care while on the PCR and their views of this technology. Data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS AND
conclusionsUsing computer screening, 29% additional patients were added by GPs to the PCR. GP decision-making for the PCR was informed by clinical factors such as: if being treated with curative intent; having stable or unstable disease; end-stage disease, frailty; the likelihood of dying within the next 12 months; and psychosocial factors such as, age, personality, patient preference and social support. Six (60%) patients/carers did not know that they/their relative was on the PCR. From a patient/carer perspective, having a non-curative illness was not in and of itself sufficient reason for being on the PCR; other factors such as, unstable disease and avoiding pain and suffering were equally if not more, important. Patients and carers considered that computer screening should support but not replace, GP decision-making about the PCR. Computer screening merits ongoing development as a tool to aid clinical decision-making around entry to a PCR, but should not be used as a sole criterion. Care need, irrespective of diagnosis, disease trajectory or prognosis, should determine care.
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.