Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38617095›Full record

ReviewPalliative care and social practice2024

A mixed-methods systematic review investigating the use of digital health interventions to provide palliative and end-of-life care for patients in low- and middle-income countries.

Weerasingha Navarathnage Sachintha Dilhani, Sarah Mitchell, Jeremy Dale, Kavanbir Toor, Mikail Javaid, John I MacArtney

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Palliative care and social practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.0field-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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Role of Digital Health on Palliative Care: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Feasibility and Acceptability of mPallCareJMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Weerasingha Navarathnage Sachintha DilhaniMinistry of Health, Sri Lanka.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5639-2432
Sarah MitchellDivision of Primary Care, Palliative Care and Public Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Jeremy DaleUnit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Kavanbir ToorWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7711-5226
Mikail JavaidWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
John I MacArtneyUnit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Medical School Building, Coventry, West Midlands CV4 7AL, UK.
University of Warwick · GBMinistry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine · LKUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The need for palliative care is rising globally with 76% of those who are in need living in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Digital health interventions (DHIs) have been identified as a means of making palliative care more widely accessible. This review summarizes the range and characteristics of DHIs used to deliver palliative care in LMICs and sought to identify factors that influence their implementation and utilization. Objectives: This review aims to summarize the range and characteristics of DHIs used to deliver palliative care in LMICs and identify factors that influence their implementation and utilization. Design: Mixed-method systematic review incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data. Data sources and methods: All studies focusing on DHIs for patients who need palliative care (adults/children) and their caregivers (patient and caregiver centred) in LMICs and published in English were identified through a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases. Data synthesis and analysis were carried out following the convergent integrated approach based on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for mixed-methods systematic reviews. Results: Fifteen studies were included (three qualitative, four mixed-methods and eight quantitative studies). Telemedicine/mHealth was the most reported DHI utilized in LMICs in delivering palliative care. Patients and caregivers benefited from using DHIs in many ways including increased access to care with reduced discomfort, travel time and risk of health care-associated infections. Health care providers also reported that using DHI such as telemedicine enables them to provide care in a more effective and efficient way. Four factors were identified as the main barriers to implementation: resource constraints; literacy, training and skills; governance, operational and communication issues and technical issues. Conclusion: DHIs, such as telemedicine, have the potential to enhance accessibility to palliative care in LMICs, particularly in rural areas. Comprehensive strategies for their use are required to address the identified barriers.

Indexed as

digital healthe-healthend-of-life carelow-income countriesmiddle-income countriesmobile healthpalliative caretelehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID38617095
PMCPMC11010586
OpenAlexW4394772780

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.