ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2022
Patient and Caregiver Prioritization of Palliative and End-of-Life Cancer Care Quality Measures.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practices for supporting relatives of patients in the agonal phase by an interdisciplinary team in palliative care units. consensus research (PROPAGE 2).BMC palliative care · 2025Guideline
- e-PainSupport: A Digital Pain Management Application for Home Hospice Care.The American journal of hospice & palliative care · 2024Article
- Role matters in understanding 'quality' in palliative care: a qualitative analysis of patient, caregiver and practitioner perspectives.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Integrating Patient and Expert Perspectives to Conceptualize High-Quality Palliative Cancer Care for Symptoms in the US Veterans Health Administration: A Qualitative Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDevelopment and prioritization of quality measures typically relies on experts in clinical medicine, but patients and their caregivers may have different perspectives on quality measurement priorities.
objectiveTo inform priorities for health system implementation of palliative cancer and end-of-life care quality measures by eliciting perspectives of patients and caregivers.
designUsing modified RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Panel methods and materials tailored for knowledgeable lay participants, we convened a panel to rate cancer palliative care process quality measure concepts before and after a 1-day, in-person meeting.
participantsNine patients and caregivers with experience living with or caring for patients with cancer. MAIN MEASURES: Panelists rated each concept on importance for providing patient- and family-centered care on a nine-point scale and each panelist nominated five highest priority measure concepts ("top 5"). KEY
resultsCancer patient and caregiver panelists rated all measure concepts presented as highly important to patient- and family- centered care (median rating ≥ 7) in pre-panel (mean rating range, 6.9-8.8) and post-panel ratings (mean rating range, 7.2-8.9). Forced choice nominations of the "top 5" helped distinguish similarly rated measure concepts. Measure concepts nominated into the "top 5" by three or more panelists included two measure concepts of communication (goals of care discussions and discussion of prognosis), one measure concept on providing comprehensive assessments of patients, and three on symptoms including pain management plans, improvement in pain, and depression management plans. Patients and caregivers nominated one additional measure concept (pain screening) back into consideration, bringing the total number of measure concepts under consideration to 21.
conclusionsInput from cancer patients and caregivers helped identify quality measurement priorities for health system implementation. Forced choice nominations were useful to discriminate concepts with the highest perceived importance. Our approach serves as a model for incorporating patient and caregiver priorities in quality measure development and implementation.
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.