ReviewPalliative medicine2023
Challenges and opportunities for improvement when people with an intellectual disability or serious mental illness also need palliative care: A qualitative meta-ethnography.
Review in Palliative medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A cognitive accessibility review of national palliative care resources with people with cognitive disabilities.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Healthcare professionals' engagement in palliative care for patients with mental disorders: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Facilitators of palliative care provision for people with mental illness: a qualitative analysis from the perspective of mental healthcare staff.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeople with diagnoses of intellectual disability or serious mental illness have higher mortality rates due to physical comorbidities; better understanding is needed to guide best practice in provision of palliative care for these populations.
aimsTo identify multivoiced perspectives, drawn from lived experience of: what works, and what does not, in palliative care for people with intellectual disability or serious mental illness; challenges in, and opportunities to improve, palliative care.
designA systematically constructed qualitative meta-ethnography. Protocol published (PROSPERO: CRD42021236616). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CINAHL PLUS and Embase used without date limitations. Papers published in English, containing qualitative data on palliative care provision for people with a diagnosis of intellectual disability or serious mental illness were included. Global five-point strength score applied for relevance/quality appraisal.
resultsFamiliarity (of location, people and/or things) is important for good palliative care. Assumptions and misunderstandings about the role of mental capacity assessment to appropriately involve the patient in decision-making are common. Adapting training for palliative care staff to address concerns and beliefs about mental illness is one of the methods that helps avoid diagnostic overshadowing. Proactive identification of service arrangements to meet needs of persons with personality, psychotic, delusional and bipolar affective disorders will help optimise care.
conclusionsEvidence, including the voices of people with intellectual disability or serious mental illness is urgently needed to guide efforts to improve their access to and experience of palliative care. More evidence is especially needed to understand, develop and implement best practice for people with psychosis, bipolar affective disorder, mania and personality disorder.
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.