ArticleBMC palliative care2025
Experiences of healthcare professionals providing palliative care in home settings - a scoping review.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practices and perspectives on dying at home in Norwegian home care services - a secondary analysis of qualitative data.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- "We are running on the fumes of goodwill" Professionals' experiences of delivering 24/7 end-of-life care to children and their families: a qualitative study.BMC palliative care · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe growing preference for home-based end-of-life care accords a dignified death for terminally ill patients. However, for healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved, this caregiving approach is embedded with unique psychosocial, practical and emotional stressors. Without sufficient support, HCPs face higher risks of moral distress, compassion fatigue, vicarious trauma, secondary traumatic stress and burnout-collectively known as the costs of caring-that precipitate depersonalisation and compromised patient care. Despite its far-reaching implications, current understanding of the costs of caring amongst HCPs in home-based settings remains remiss. Thus, we conduct a scoping review to investigate the experiences of HPCs providing home-based palliative care to terminally ill adult oncology patients.
methodsOutlined by the Systematic Evidence-Based Approach and PRISMA guidelines, searches for relevant articles published between 1st January 2000 and 1st October 2024 were performed on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases. Selected articles underwent concurrent and independent thematic and content analyses. Central themes and categories were extracted and merged, forming key domains that framed the discussion.
resultsOf 5676 titles and abstracts screened, 543 full-text articles were reviewed. 20 full-text articles were analysed for inclusion. Four key domains emerged: (1) motivations to practice palliative care; (2) impact on personhood of HCPs (3) challenges faced by HCPs; and (4) support systems for HCPs.
conclusionProviding home-based palliative care to adult oncology patients is fulfilling for HCPs-fostering meaningful professional relationships with patients, a more holistic perspective of life and death and a heightened sense of personal accomplishment. However, HCPs may encounter dissonance amidst conflicts between their dominant beliefs and new experiences, leading to burnout, depersonalisation and poor care delivery that are further exacerbated by the costs of caring, if inadequately addressed. Longitudinal and accessible personalised and organisational support is key to sustaining HCPs' capacity to deliver compassionate and high-quality palliative care. The use of the Ring Theory of Personhood framework in this review provides an avenue for the structuring of such support systems.
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.