ArticleBMJ open2025
Validation of a questionnaire to assess complexity of palliative care needs in primary care in Malaga, Spain: a study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe needs of patients in palliative care (PC) are multiple and changing. Several tools assess them, but there is a lack of homogeneity among them. A specific diagnostic tool to assess complexity in PC (IDC-Pal: Instrumento Diagnóstico de la Complejidad en Cuidados Paliativos, in Spanish) was created in community and hospital settings with 36 items to diagnose PC complexity, but its application in primary care is difficult.
aims(1) To generate an adapted version to primary care of the IDC-Pal tool to identify and stratify PC complexity in the adult population. (2) To determine face, content, criterion and construct validity and reliability of the new instrument. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: There are three phases of clinimetric cross-sectional observational validation study: ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study evaluates a novel, co-designed tool to diagnose PC complexity to inform practice recommendations for a more efficient allocation of resources that may be included in future clinical practice guidelines. The study has been approved by the Provincial Research Ethics Committee of Málaga as of July 2023 and will be conducted in accordance with the principles established in the Declaration of Helsinki, the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, and the requirements established in Spanish legislation. The study conforms to the norms of good clinical practice. All participants in the Delphi study must express their agreement to participate in the survey by providing informed consent (IC) before beginning the questionnaire. For the development of Phase 2, the primary care professionals who agree to participate will sign a researcher commitment, and the patients included in the study will sign a written IC before the data collection. Dissemination of the results will inform future research on the appropriate diagnosis of PC complexity in the primary care setting, which is of paramount importance due to its gatekeeper position. Dissemination will be aimed at academics and healthcare professionals through publications, presentations and training workshops on the use of the diagnostic tool.
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.