ArticleJournal of pain and symptom management2025
Quality of Virtual vs. In-Person Outpatient Palliative Care: Disparities by Language and Race.
Article in Journal of pain and symptom management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- "We Talk About Everything": Experiences with Digital Health Communication in Palliative Care.Journal of palliative medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextVirtual visits have increased in outpatient, clinic-based palliative care (OPC). The association between virtual visits and OPC outcomes is largely unknown.
objectives(1) Examine the association between visit type (virtual vs. in-person) and screening (yes/no) for psychosocial, spiritual, and goals of care needs. (2) Assess effect modification by language.
methodsWe used data from the Palliative Care Quality Network (01/2017-03/2021). We conducted multivariable analyses adjusting for age, sex, diagnosis, self-reported race-ethnicity, and language, clustered by site, and included an interaction term to assess effect modification by language.
resultsAmong 2684 patients, 29% had a virtual visit; 50% were ≥65 years old, 24% non-English preferred languages; 18% identified as Hispanic, 9% Black, 17% Asian, 6% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. There were no differences by visit type in screening for psychosocial (aOR 0.87 vs. in-person visits, 95% CI 0.60-1.25), spiritual (aOR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57-1.15), or goals of care needs (aOR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85-1.31). Patients with non-English preferred languages (vs. English-speaking) had significantly lower odds of screening regardless of visit type. Patients identifying as Black (vs. White) also had significantly lower odds of screening.
conclusionsThere were no differences by visit type in screening for psychosocial, spiritual, and goals of care needs. Patients with preferred languages other than English were significantly less likely to be screened than English speakers, though there was no further difference by visit type. Patients identifying as Black were also significantly less likely to be screened. Addressing these disparities in core OPC elements is essential in providing equitable, high-quality OPC.
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.