SynthesisBMC palliative care2025
Enhancing palliative care through university-community partnerships: a systematic review of models, impacts, and challenges.
Synthesis in BMC palliative care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUniversity-community partnerships (UCPs) represent a transformative model for integrating student experiential learning with community-based palliative care. These partnerships enhance empathy, interdisciplinary collaboration, and service delivery, while addressing gaps in end-of-life care.
aimThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of UCPs in palliative care, focusing on their impact on student learning, community outcomes, and innovative practices.
methodsFollowing the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases for studies published between January 2014 and March 2024. This search yielded 206 unique citations. Nine studies were included after the full-text screening. Grey literature sources (e.g., reports and web-based articles) were screened but excluded due to insufficient methodological rigor, and thematic synthesis was conducted using NVivo, with two independent reviewers performing data extraction. The Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBIS (qualitative) and RoB 2 (quantitative) tools.
resultsOf the 206 records screened, nine studies (eight qualitative and one quantitative) met the inclusion criteria. The identified UCP models include transactional, transformational, and community-based participatory research (CBPR), with CBPR noted for contextual adaptability. UCPs contributed to improving student empathy, interprofessional learning, and community empowerment. Barriers include limited resources, cultural mismatches, and inconsistent stakeholder alignments. Innovations, such as telehealth and virtual learning, were also observed.
conclusionUCPs have strong potential to enhance palliative care education and delivery. Scaling these models requires sustainable funding, culturally responsive approaches, and policy integration. Future research must emphasize longitudinal designs and standardized evaluation structures.
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.