Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34930177›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2021

Concerns and potential improvements in end-of-life care from the perspectives of older patients and informal caregivers: a scoping review.

Mina Motamedi, Caitlin Brandenburg, Mina Bakhit, Zoe A Michaleff, Loai Albarqouni, Justin Clark, Meidelynn Ooi, Danial Bahudin, Danielle Ní Chróinín, Magnolia Cardona

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

10 authors.

Mina MotamediAustralian Centre for Health Engagement Evidence and Values (ACHEEV), University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3814-497X
Caitlin BrandenburgAllied Health Services, Gold Coast University Hospital, Southport, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6992-7790
Mina BakhitInstitute for Evidence Based Healthcare (IEBH), Bond University, Robina, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6162-3362
Zoe A MichaleffInstitute for Evidence Based Healthcare (IEBH), Bond University, Robina, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0360-4956
Loai AlbarqouniInstitute for Evidence Based Healthcare (IEBH), Bond University, Robina, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4114-9106
Justin ClarkInstitute for Evidence Based Healthcare (IEBH), Bond University, Robina, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0133-1613
Meidelynn OoiFaculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Danial BahudinFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, QLD, Australia.
Danielle Ní ChróinínDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7711-9718
Magnolia CardonaInstitute for Evidence Based Healthcare (IEBH), Bond University, Robina, QLD, Australia. mcardona@bond.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-6499-2705

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOvertreatment in advanced age i.e. aggressive interventions that do not improve survival and are potentially harmful, can impair quality of care near the end of life (EOL). As healthcare provider perspectives on care quality may differ from that of service users, the aim of this study was to explore the views of older patients near EOL or their caregivers about the quality of health care at the EOL based on their lived experience, and to identify healthcare service improvements.

methodsMedline and backward citation searches were conducted for qualitative or quantitative studies reported on the views of patients and/or informal caregivers about EOL care quality. Thematic analysis was used to summarise qualitative data (primary analysis); narrative and tabulations were used to summarise quantitative data (secondary analysis).

resultsThirty articles met the inclusion criteria. Five main qualitative themes regarding quality care emerged: (1) Effective communication between clinicians and patients/caregivers; (2) Healthcare that values patient preferences and shared decision making; (3) Models of care that support quality of life and death with dignity; (4) Healthcare services that meet patient expectations; and (5) Support for informal caregivers in dealing with EOL challenges. The quantitative articles supported various aspects of the thematic framework.

conclusionThe findings of this study show that many of the issues highlighted by patients or bereaved relatives have persisted over the past two decades. There is an urgent need for comprehensive evaluation of care across the healthcare system and targeted redesign of existing EOL care pathways to ensure that care aligns with what patients and informal caregivers consider high-quality patient-centred care at the EOL.

Indexed as

CaregiversTerminal CareHumansOvertreatmentQuality of Health CareQuality of LifeEnd-of-life careFrail elderlyInformal caregiversPatient-centered careQuality of health careScoping review

Identifiers

PMID34930177
PMCPMC8690959

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.