Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39871884›Full record

ArticlePalliative care and social practice2025

Assessing and comparing compassionate communities benefits across cities in diverse cultural contexts: a step toward the identification of the most important ones.

Valentina González-Jaramillo, Alicia Krikorian, Vilma Tripodoro, Margarita Jorge, Sebastián Orellana, Francy López, Maria Clara Vélez, Tatiana Noguera, Silvina Montilla, Sibylle Felber and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Palliative care and social practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Connecting communities across the globe: Atlas protocol.Palliative care and social practice · 2025
    Article
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

12 authors.

Valentina González-JaramilloUniversity Center for Palliative Care, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 38, Bern 3010, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2470-7022
Alicia KrikorianUniversidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia.
Vilma TripodoroRED-InPal-Instituto Pallium Latinoamérica, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2328-6032
Margarita JorgeRED-InPal-Instituto Pallium Latinoamérica, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Sebastián OrellanaRED-InPal-Instituto Pallium Latinoamérica, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0535-9245
Francy LópezUniversidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia.
Maria Clara VélezUniversidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia.
Tatiana NogueraUniversidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia.
Silvina MontillaRED-InPal-Instituto Pallium Latinoamérica, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Sibylle FelberUniversity Center for Palliative Care, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Sofía C ZambranoUniversity Center for Palliative Care, Inselspital, Bern, University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Steffen EychmüllerUniversity Center for Palliative Care, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: As Compassionate Communities (CCs) are developing worldwide, there is a growing need to systematically assess if they are having the expected effects on the community. Although having a single strategy would be ideal in terms of standardization and comparison, due to the inherent heterogeneity of CCs, it is not known how feasible this would be. Objectives: To assess the feasibility of creating a general strategy, based on the results of a series of focus groups conducted across three diverse CCs, to guide the evaluation of already existing programs and the development of new ones. Design: Focus groups in three cities, including different types of stakeholders, were conducted to identify potential outcomes (benefits) from CCs, as the base of a general strategy to assess CCs. Methods: We coded the discussions and built a list of the outcomes mentioned. Then, we merged those similar enough into a more general one that encompassed the others. We extracted from reviews all the CCs outcomes that have been measured. We merged the outcomes from the focus groups and the reviews and built a single list. Results: We obtained a final list of 46 outcomes; 44 were reported from the focus groups, and two more were added from the reviews. Of the 44 from the focus groups, 22 (50%) were present in the three CCs, 14(32%) were present in two CCs, and the remaining 8 (18%) were present only in one compassionate community. There were outcomes commonly reported both in the three CCs and in the literature reviews related to training the general community in compassion and end-of-life topics, facilitating the development of community networks, and generating public spaces for social integration. Conclusion: Half of the identified outcomes were reported in the three CCs. This indicates the feasibility of creating a single strategy but also reflects the need to leave room to include other aspects specific to each community according to its context in the assessment.

Indexed as

actionsadministrationcommunitycompassionate citiescompassionate communitieseducationend-of-life carepalliative carepublic healthpublic health professional

Identifiers

PMID39871884
PMCPMC11770713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.