ArticleBMJ open2025
Developing service models for adult palliative and end of life care for people with a learning disability (The DAPPLE Project): protocol for a mixed-method study.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeople with a learning disability face significant health and mortality inequalities as well as wider systemic inequities. Challenges in palliative and end of life care (PEOLC) include communication difficulties, lack of involvement in decision-making and multimorbidity. Early identification of PEOLC needs is challenging, impacting timely care planning. The study aims to (1) understand barriers and enablers to providing high-quality, accessible PEOLC for people with a learning disability, and identify effective service delivery models and interventions and (2) improve PEOLC quality and accessibility by developing robust guidance for health and social care services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a mixed-methods study guided by the NHS England 2021 Ambitions Framework and adopting the Social Model of Disability. There are four workstreams: (1) a retrospective cohort analysis of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink; (2) a rapid scoping review; (3) field work in four study sites across England, involving (a) interviews with senior leaders and commissioners (n=up to 16) and informal stakeholder engagement conversations; (b) ethnographic case studies with people with a learning disability at the end of life (n=up to 20) and retrospective case reviews of people with a learning disability who have died (n=up to 40), using family and staff interviews and (c) development and piloting of methods for enabling systematic identification of PEOLC need, using experience-based co-design and (4) patient and public involvement (PPI) activities and a co-production group of 10 people with a learning disability to support data analysis and outputs. Data will be analysed using adapted framework analysis methodology. This is an inclusive, co-produced study with significant involvement of advisors and researchers with a learning disability as part of the study team. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained for workstreams 1, 3a and 3b. Significant attention has been paid to ensuring informed consent, making adjustments for capacity. Accessible information and consent forms will be used, involving consultees and adhering to the Mental Capacity Act for participants who lack capacity. Data security will follow General Data Protection Regulation rules. Dissemination will include patient exemplars, guidance and various resources, engaging stakeholders through multiple formats. STUDY REGISTRATION: researchregistry10500.
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.