ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025
Process evaluation of a person-centred outcome measures-based quality improvement program in a hospital-based palliative care in mainland China.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 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.
- Palliative care among cancer patients in Georgia: System-level gaps identified through health-related quality of life discrepancies.Journal of public health research · 2026Article
- The Palliative Aged Care Outcomes Program (PACOP): establishing a national framework to improve palliative care in long-term care facilities for older people.BMC geriatrics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to understand Chinese palliative care clinicians' experience in integrating the Palliative Care Outcome Collaboration (PCOC) model into their clinical practice and to learn lessons for sustainability.
methodsAn explanatory mixed-methods study was conducted. Combing semi-structured in-depth interviews with palliative care clinicians guided by Normalization Process Theory (NPT) with analysis of clinical documents to examine implementation outcomes. Qualitative data were analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive content analysis, quantitative data were presented using frequencies and percentages.
resultsTwelve out of 16 clinicians participated in this study. Six months post-implementation, over half reported successful integration of the model into their unit. Implementation outcomes indicated strong clinician adherence, with all inpatients assessed and 75% of clinicians participating. Eleven sub-themes were identified within the NPT constructs, explaining the mechanisms contributing to its success and failure. These included clinicians' perception of the model's value and effectiveness (Coherence), accurate assessment and effective use of results and quality reports (Collective Action), and a supportive network that fully incorporated clinicians' views (Cognitive Participation), and aligning the PCOC model with existing workflows, reducing redundant tools, and streamlining documentation (Reflexive Monitoring).
conclusionsTo effectively implement a PCOMs-based quality improvement program into routine clinical practice, a "top-down" followed by a "bottom-up" implementation approach is recommended. Effectively utilizing the program to achieve its value and fit into existing workflows without adding unnecessary workload could ensure its sustainability. Furthermore, in countries and regions where palliative care is emerging, priorities should focus on enhancing clinicians' knowledge, self-efficacy, and supporting multidisciplinary collaboration.
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.