Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37092501›Full record

SynthesisPalliative medicine2023

Description of patient reported experience measures (PREMs) for hospitalised patients with palliative care needs and their families, and how these map to noted areas of importance for quality care: A systematic review.

Claudia Virdun, Maja Garcia, Jane L Phillips, Tim Luckett

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Palliative medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Claudia VirdunFaculty of Health, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3945-0749
Maja GarciaFaculty of Health, Improving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care through Clinical Research and Translation (IMPACCT), University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9496-9546
Jane L PhillipsFaculty of Health, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Tim LuckettFaculty of Health, Improving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care through Clinical Research and Translation (IMPACCT), University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6121-5409
University of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe global need for focused improvements in palliative care within the acute hospital setting is well noted. A large volume of evidence exists detailing what hospitalised patients with palliative care needs and their families note as important for high quality care. Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) are one mechanism that hospitals could use to inform improvement work. To date there has not been a review of PREMs available for hospitalised patients with palliative care needs and/or their family, nor how they align with noted priorities for high quality care.

aimTo identify and describe PREMs designed for hospitalised patients with palliative care needs and their families; and their alignment with patient and family identified domains for high quality care.

designA systematic review. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of CINAHL, Medline and PsycInfo was conducted up to September 23, 2022 and supplemented by handsearching article reference lists and internet searches. PREMs written in English and designed for patients with palliative care needs in acute hospitals were eligible for inclusion. Included PREMs were described by: summarising key characteristics; and mapping their items to domains noted to be important to hospitalised patients with palliative care needs and their families informed by outcomes from a published study completed in 2021. Evidence for psychometric properties were reviewed.

resultsForty-four PREMs with 827 items were included. Items per PREM varied from 2 to 85 (median 25, IQR 13-42). Two-thirds (

conclusionsWhilst 44 PREMs are available for hospitalised patients with palliative care needs or their families, a varied number of items are available for some domains of care provision that are important, compared to others. Few are suitable for people with lower levels of literacy or limited cognitive capacity due to illness.

Indexed as

Hospice and Palliative Care NursingPalliative CareHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatientsQuality of Health CarehospitalPalliative carequality improvementquality of carequestionnairessurveyssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37092501
PMCPMC10320712
OpenAlexW4366821561

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.