ArticleBMC palliative care2024
Using normalization process theory to evaluate the use of patient-centred outcome measures in specialist palliative home care-a qualitative interview study.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Implementing patient-centred outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice. An updated systematic review of facilitators and barriers.BMC palliative care · 2026Pooled it
- Self-management of vaginal pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse: multi-method process evaluation, linked to the TOPSY randomised controlled trial.BMC medicine · 2025Trial
- Symptom and problem burden, performance status and palliative care phases in specialist palliative care: cross-sectional analysis of care episodes.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2026Article
- Developing information material to support the assessment of palliative care needs in dementia: a qualitative participatory approach.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Supporting homecare workers to provide palliative and end-of-life care: A scoping review of interventions and their implementation.Palliative care and social practice · 2026Article
- Rehabilitation robotics in routine care: a minimum dataset and reporting framework for service delivery models.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Is digitalization still an uncharted territory for palliative care? Use of electronic patient records and assessment instruments in German specialist palliative care: results of an online survey.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- A National Quality Initiative to Improve Palliative Care Outcomes: Identifying Enabling Factors that Drive Quality Improvement.Palliative medicine reports · 2025Article
- Implementation of a hospice community service redesign: Qualitative research identifying lessons learned.Palliative care and social practice · 2025Article
- Did the Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration (PCOC) program lead to improved end-of-life care quality and reduced non-beneficial treatments?Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandardised use of patient-centred outcome measures (PCOMs) improves aspects of quality of care. Normalization Process Theory (NPT) considers the social (inter-)actions of implementation processes operationalised through four constructs: coherence-building, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring. The aim of the study was to identify barriers and enablers for the successful use of PCOMs in specialist palliative home care (SPHC) using NPT, to collect clinically meaningful and reliable data to improve patient outcomes.
methodsQualitative study using semi-structured interviews with palliative care professionals from German SPHC teams who participated in a study using PCOMs. Data were analysed using Framework analysis, and contextualised within NPT.
resultsSeventeen interviews across five teams were conducted. Some teams already had an understanding of what PCOMs are and how to use them, based on previous experience. In other teams, this understanding developed through the perception of the benefits (coherence). Participation and engagement depended on individuals and was decisive for coherence-building. The attitude of the management level also played a major role (cognitive participation). Integration of PCOMs into everyday clinical practice varied and depended on the manifestation of the first two constructs and other already established routines (collective action). In the context of appraisal, both positive (e.g. focus on patient) and negative aspects (e.g. additional work) of using PCOMs were mentioned (reflexive monitoring).
conclusionsAlthough benefits of using PCOMs were partly recognised, not all teams continued standardised use. Here, not only the social (inter-)actions, but also the influence of the context (working environment) were decisive. Future implementation strategies should consider integrating PCOMs in existing electronic patient records, education sessions supporting coherence-building, internal facilitators/local champions, and ensuring frequent data analyses as it is beneficial and increases the readiness of using PCOMs.
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.