ReviewHealth policy OPEN2025
What gets measured in palliative care? A review and synthesis of routine data collection in 16 countries.
Review in Health policy OPEN, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Describing and monitoring quality in value-based palliative and end-of-life care at a population level in Wales: achievements and future direction.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2026Article
- Article
- Is digitalization still an uncharted territory for palliative care? Use of electronic patient records and assessment instruments in German specialist palliative care: results of an online survey.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Distinctive trajectories of symptom burden, activities of daily living, and self-efficacy among patients with advanced cancer receiving care in an acute palliative care unit: a pilot longitudinal study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Observational
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is an increasing focus on strengthening palliative care data infrastructure to evaluate and improve the quality of care. We conducted an extensive review of policy documents to identify international best practice in the use of routine data in palliative care. Methods: We identified 16 countries with well-established palliative care services before undertaking the review. We searched systematically for relevant documentation on each country in the academic, grey and governmental literature. For each country we then compiled a narrative synthesis utilising a standardised extraction template. Local experts verified country-level synopses. We combined the 16 country documents using thematic synthesis. Results: There was significant heterogeneity in the data infrastructure of the countries examined. The majority of the databases and data sources focused on specialist palliative care services with a notable lack of data on palliative care delivered in primary and community care. Several countries have established bespoke palliative care databases; others harness existing data sources, and capitalise on the existence of unique patient identifiers. The gaps and limitations identified were commonly shared across all types of palliative and end of life care data infrastructure. Similarly, many of the factors deemed highly influential in implementing and sustaining existing databases are relevant across all data infrastructure. Conclusions: This first-of-its-kind analysis details the characteristics of databases/data sources and highlights the significant heterogeneity which exists. The strengths and limitations of existing databases/data sources and the factors that influence how well these systems are sustained are examined, providing key learnings for those eager to improve the data infrastructure in their own jurisdictions.
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.