ArticleBMC palliative care2024
Palliative care national plan implementation through stakeholder analysis.
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 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.
- Perceived and received support among patients with cancer receiving palliative care in Malta: a qualitative study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Collaborative networks in palliative care: Analysis of principles and models in Argentina and Colombia.Palliative care and social practice · 2026Article
- Colombia's 5-year public health strategy for palliative care: Implementation protocol.Palliative care and social practice · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNational palliative care plans depend upon stakeholder engagement to succeed. Assessing the capability, interest, and knowledge of stakeholders is a crucial step in the implementation of public health initiatives, as recommended by the World Health Organisation. However, utilising stakeholder analysis is a strategy underused in public palliative care.
objectiveTo conduct a stakeholder analysis characterising a diverse group of stakeholders involved in implementing a national palliative care plan in three rural regions of an upper-middle-income country.
methodsA descriptive cross-sectional study design, complemented by a quantitative stakeholder analysis approach, was executed through a survey designed to gauge stakeholders' levels of interest and capability in relation to five fundamental dimensions of public palliative care: provision of services, accessibility of essential medicines, palliative care education, financial support, and palliative care vitality. Stakeholders were categorised as promoters (high-power, high-interest), latent (high-power, low-interest), advocates (low-power, high-interest), and indifferent (low-power and low-interest). Stakeholder self-perceived category and knowledge level were also assessed.
resultsAmong the 65 surveyed stakeholders, 19 were categorised as promoters, 34 as advocates, 9 as latent, and 3 as indifferent. Stakeholders' self-perception of their category did not align with the results of the quantitative analysis. When evaluated by region and palliative care dimensions the distribution of stakeholders was nonuniform. Palliative care funding was the dimension with the highest number of stakeholders categorised as indifferent, and the lowest percentage of promoters. Stakeholders categorised as promoters consistently reported a low level of knowledge, regardless of the dimension, region, or their level of interest.
conclusionsAssessing the capability, interest, and knowledge of stakeholders is a crucial step when implementing public health initiatives in palliative care. It allows for a data-driven decision-making process on how to delegate responsibilities, administer financial resources, and establish governance boards that remain engaged and work efficiently.
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.