ArticleBMC palliative care2025
The implementation of guidelines in palliative care - 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.
- Grief experiences among LGBTQ+ populations: a scoping review.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- A scoping review of palliative care assessment tools.BMC palliative care · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGuidelines are essential tools for ensuring high-quality healthcare. However, discrepancies exist between their availability and practical implementation. In the context of palliative care, the extent to which guidelines are implemented and the barriers and facilitators that influence this process remain unknown.
aimThe present study aimed at systematically reviewing the international literature on the implementation of palliative care guidelines to evaluate factors that support or hinder implementation of palliative care guidelines globally.
methodA scoping review was conducted following the methodological approach of Arksey and O'Malley (2005). After the formulation of research questions and development of a search string, relevant studies investigating the implementation of guidelines were identified and retrieved from the databases CINAHL, LIVIO, PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection on 4 January 2024. Two researchers independently selected articles for inclusion, employing a blinded process with predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results were subsequently categorised deductively by the same researchers using Petermann's (2014) taxonomy of implementation outcomes. The results were summarised and presented in tabular form.
resultsThe search yielded 2,086 records, of which 1,252 were included in the title and abstract screening. Subsequently, 113 full-text articles were reviewed for eligibility, resulting in 29 articles deemed suitable for the final analysis. Six implementation outcomes were identified in the included literature: (1) acceptability (n = 15 articles), (2) adoption (n = 6 articles), (3) appropriateness (n = 9 articles), (4) feasibility (n = 9 articles), (5) fidelity/adherence (n = 14 articles) and (6) penetration (n = 14 articles). The majority of studies employed quantitative approaches (n = 22) and considered the perspective of healthcare professionals and their opinions regarding guideline implementation in palliative care. Only 4 articles considered patient related outcomes or the perspectives of the family caregivers. Ten articles reported on facilitators and barriers. Facilitators included healthcare professionals' motivation and managerial support, while barriers primarily referred to time constraints and limited knowledge.
conclusionsGuideline implementation in palliative care is highly variable. Future research should aim at comprehensively analysing facilitators of and barriers to this process, considering diverse implementation outcomes. For these evaluations, mixed-method approaches are recommended.
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.