Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34400402›Full record

ArticleBMJ supportive & palliative care2021

Palliative care research promotion in policy and practice: a knowledge exchange process.

Anne Finucane, Emma Carduff, Richard Meade, Sarah Doyle, Stephen Fenning, Stuart Cumming, Diana Hekerem, Fariel Rahman, Jean Lugton, Bridget Johnston and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ supportive & palliative care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 9 institutions in 1 country.

Anne FinucaneClinical Psychology, School of Health in Social Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK a.finucane@ed.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3056-059X
Emma CarduffPrimary Palliative Care Research Group, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Richard MeadePolicy and Research, Marie Curie Scotland, Edinburgh, UK.
Sarah DoyleQueen's Nursing Institute Scotland, Edinburgh, UK.
Stephen FenningNHS Fife Specialist Palliative Care Service, NHS Fife, Kircaldy, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9297-7393
Stuart CummingNHS Forth Valley, Stirling, UK.
Diana HekeremImprovement Hub (iHub), Healthcare Improvement Scotland, Edinburgh, UK.
Fariel RahmanChildren's Hospice Association Scotland, Edinburgh, UK.
Jean LugtonPolicy and Research, Marie Curie Hospice, Edinburgh, UK.
Bridget JohnstonSchool of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Scott A MurrayPrimary Palliative Care Research Group, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6649-9428
Marie Curie Hospice · GBChildren in Scotland · GBHealthcare Improvement Scotland · GBMarie Curie · GBNHS Fife · GBNHS Forth Valley · GBNHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde · GBQueen’s Nursing Institute Scotland · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In palliative care, as in many areas of medicine, there is a considerable amount of research conducted that makes sound recommendations but does not result consistently in improved care. For instance, though palliative care has been shown to benefit all people with a life-threatening illness, its main reach continues to be for those with cancer. Drawing on relational models of research use, we set out to engage policy-makers, educators, clinicians, commissioners and service providers in a knowledge exchange process to identify implications of research for Scottish palliative care priorities. First, we mapped the existing palliative care research evidence in Scotland. We then organised evidence review meetings and a wider stakeholder event where research producers and users came together to coproduce implications of the evidence for policy, education and practice. We used questionnaires and key stakeholder feedback meetings to explore impacts of this process on research uptake and use immediately after the events and over time. In this paper, we reflect on this knowledge exchange process and the broader context in which it was set. We found that participation fostered relationships and led to a rich and enthusiastic exploration of research evidence from multiple perspectives. Potential impacts relating to earlier identification for palliative care, education and need-based commissioning ensued. We make suggestions to guide replication.

Indexed as

bereavementcancerchronic conditionscommunicationeducation and trainingnursing home care

Identifiers

PMID34400402
PMCPMC9380483
OpenAlexW3190995067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.