Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35115005›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2022

Conceptualising effective symptom management in palliative care: a novel model derived from qualitative data.

Emma J Chapman, Simon Pini, Zoe Edwards, Yousuf Elmokhallalati, Fliss E M Murtagh, Michael I Bennett

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The experiences and needs of metastatic spinal cancer family caregivers at home: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Optimizing hospice care: A scoping review of staffing strategies to enhance practice.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emma J ChapmanAcademic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, UK. e.j.chapman@leeds.ac.uk.
Simon PiniAcademic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, UK.
Zoe EdwardsAcademic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, UK.
Yousuf ElmokhallalatiAcademic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, UK.
Fliss E M MurtaghWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK.
Michael I BennettAcademic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, UK.
University of Hull · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPain, breathlessness and fatigue are some of the most challenging symptoms to manage in patients with advanced disease. Specialist palliative care leads to better symptom management, but factors contributing to successful symptom management in this context have not been explored. Our aim was to understand what facilitates effective symptom management in specialist palliative care within UK hospices and investigate what barriers are experienced.

methodsThis was a grounded theory study using qualitative semi-structured focus groups and interviews. Participants were recruited from multidisciplinary specialist palliative care teams (doctors, nurses, healthcare assistants, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, complementary therapists, social workers and chaplains) working in inpatient, outpatient and community services provided by five hospices in the United Kingdom.

resultsWe present a novel qualitative data-derived model of effective symptom management in specialist palliative care. We describe a co-ordinated, multi-faceted, sequential approach involving a process of engagement, partnership, decision-making, and delivery. Interventions to manage symptoms are less effective in psychologically distressed patients. Our data highlights that families of patients have a key role in determining effectiveness of symptom management interventions A holistic approach by a co-ordinated, multi-disciplinary team, including support to recognise and minimise psychological distress might facilitate more effective symptom management. Barriers to symptom management include team discordance and lack of understanding about symptom management by patient and families.

conclusionsShared decision-making between patients and professionals and co-ordination of care by a multi-disciplinary team are key components of effective symptom management. Actions to address psychological distress and evaluate the understanding and expectations of patients and their families would enable more effective symptom management. A more effective multi-disciplinary approach would be facilitated by discussion within teams about role competencies and boundaries.

Indexed as

Hospice and Palliative Care NursingHospice CareHospicesHumansPalliative CareQualitative ResearchUnited KingdomDyspnoeaFatigueHospiceNeoplasmsPainPalliative medicinePsychological distress

Identifiers

PMID35115005
PMCPMC8815221
OpenAlexW4210456388

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.