Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34756957›Full record

ReviewJournal of pain and symptom management2022

Use of Theoretical Frameworks in the Development and Testing of Palliative Care Interventions.

Mary Pilar Ingle, Devon Check, Daniel Hogan Slack, Sarah H Cross, Natalie C Ernecoff, Daniel D Matlock, Dio Kavalieratos

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of pain and symptom management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Mary Pilar IngleGraduate School of Social Work (M.P.I.), University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Devon CheckDepartment of Population Health Sciences (D.C.), Duke University School of Medicine and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Daniel Hogan SlackDepartment of Internal Medicine (D.H.S.), University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis, California, USA.
Sarah H CrossDivision of Palliative Medicine, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine (S.H.C., D.K.), Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Natalie C ErnecoffDivision of General Internal Medicine (N.C.E.), University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Daniel D MatlockDivision of Geriatrics (D.D.M.), University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA; VA Eastern Colorado Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center (D.D.M.), Denver, Colorado, USA.
Dio KavalieratosDivision of Palliative Medicine, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine (S.H.C., D.K.), Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Department of Epidemiology (D.K.), Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Electronic address: d.kavalieratos@emory.edu.
Emory University · USDuke University · USGeriatric Research Education and Clinical Center · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of Denver · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

INTEGRATING PALLIATIVE CARE WITH DISEASE MANAGEMENT TO IMPROVE OUTCOMES AMONG PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED HEART FAILURE: INTERVENTIONAL RESEARCH CAREER DEVELOPMENTK01HL133466 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI KAVALIERATOS, DIONYSIOS · 2016 to 2019
$527k
NCATS NIH HHS L30 TR001226NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL133466
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextPalliative care (PC) research has grown over the last 20 years. Yet, the causal components and pathways of PC interventions remain unclear.

objectivesTo document the prevalence and application of theoretical frameworks in developing and testing PC interventions.

methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of previously published systematic reviews of PC randomized clinical trials. Trials were evaluated for explicit mention of a theoretical framework, process or delivery model, or clinical practice guideline that supported the development of the intervention. We used a structured data extraction form to document study population, outcomes, and whether and how authors used a theoretical framework, process/delivery model, or clinical practice guideline. We applied an adapted coding scheme to evaluate use of theoretical frameworks.

resultsWe reviewed 85 PC trials conducted between 1984 and 2021. Thirty-eight percent (n = 32) of trials explicitly mentioned a theoretical framework, process or delivery model, or clinical practice guideline as a foundation for the intervention design. Only nine trials included a theoretical framework, while the remaining 23 cited a process/delivery model or clinical practice guideline.

conclusionMost PC trials do not cite a theoretical foundation for their intervention design. Future work should focus on developing and validating new theoretical frameworks and modifying existing theories and models to better explain the mechanisms of the variety of PC interventions.

Indexed as

Hospice and Palliative Care NursingPalliative CareHumansModels, TheoreticalPractice Guidelines as TopicProcess Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicPalliative care researchpalliative care theorypalliative interventionspalliative medicine

Identifiers

PMID34756957
PMCPMC8854360
OpenAlexW3209562901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.