ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024
Assessing the sensitivity and acceptability of the Royal Marsden Palliative Care Referral "Triggers" Tool for outpatients with cancer.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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.
- Understanding pain in malignant mesothelioma: a prospective, longitudinal cohort study.BMC palliative care · 2026Observational
- The development of local outpatient palliative care referral criteria for persons with advanced cancer at the University Hospital Centre Zagreb: a Delphi study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Early integration or last consultation: in-house palliative care involvement for hospitalized patients in tertiary medicine-a retrospective analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the use, acceptability, and experience of a seven-item palliative care referral screening tool in an outpatient oncology setting.
methodsA two-phase convergent parallel mixed-methods study. Patient participants who met any of the "Royal Marsden Triggers Tool" criteria were compared with those who did not in terms of demographic data, palliative care needs (Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale, IPOS) and quality of life indicators (EORTC-QLQ-C30). In-depth interviews were carried out with patients and oncology staff about their views and experience of the "Royal Marsden Triggers Tool". Qualitative and quantitative data were triangulated at data interpretation.
resultsThree hundred forty-eight patients were recruited to the quantitative phase of the study of whom 53% met at least one of the Triggers tool palliative care referral criteria. When compared with patients who were negative using the Triggers tool, "Royal Marsden Triggers Tool" positive patients had a lower quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status scale (p < 0.01)) and a higher proportion had severe or overwhelming physical needs on IPOS (38% versus 20%, p < 0.001). Median survival of "Royal Marsden Triggers Tool" positive patients was 11.7 months. Sixteen staff and 19 patients participated in qualitative interviews. The use of the tool normalised palliative care involvement, supporting individualised care and access to appropriate expertise.
conclusionThe use of a palliative care referral tool streamlines palliative care within oncology outpatient services and supports teams working together to provide an early holistic patient-centred service. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of this approach.
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.