ArticleBMC palliative care2025
Healthcare professionals' perspectives on assessing selected patient-reported outcome measures in specialist palliative care institutions: a multi-country mixed-methods study.
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.
- Caregiver satisfaction with early integrated palliative care in oncology: secondary outcomes from the PALLiON cluster-RCT.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Psychometric properties of the ICECAP-SCM capability-wellbeing measure in specialist palliative care units in Austria.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite the growing significance of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for various purposes, including economic evaluations, implementing them effectively in palliative and end-of-life care settings remains a challenge. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to PROMs data collection in inpatient specialist palliative care settings and to assess data collectors' applied perspectives on four relevant PROMs.
methodsWe conducted an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study, including an online survey (N = 29) and qualitative interviews (N = 12) with healthcare professionals and researchers from eleven countries. These participants had direct experience with PROMs data collection in specialist palliative care settings, either as part of the international iLIVE project or the Austrian PallPROMS study. The aim was to identify opportunities for optimising clinical care and other assessment purposes in the future. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the survey data and a thematic analysis of the qualitative data.
resultsThe main reflected factors were patients' very limited ability to self-complete PROMs and the optimal timing and duration of assessments. Opinions on the usefulness of different PROMs varied significantly according to the role of the participants. Overall, setting-specific PROMs assessing symptom burden were preferred to more generic quality-of-life/wellbeing measures. Identified barriers and facilitators related to five themes: patient-related factors, data collection processes, PROM type, staff perceptions and organisational factors. Findings also highlighted better information and training needs.
conclusionsPrioritising care-relevant tools and carefully planning data collection, with main barriers addressed, can significantly increase the successful implementation of PROMs collection in specialist palliative care institutions. Since the preferred PROMs are not directly suitable for health economic evaluation, it is crucial to explore mapping alternatives for this purpose.
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.