ArticlePloS one2025
Implementation of a clinical interview guide to Multidimensional needs assessment in Palliative care (MAP): A multicenter mixed-methods feasibility study.
Article in PloS one, 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
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA recent systematic review highlighted the lack of consensus on the needs that should be assessed in palliative care to develop the initial therapeutic plan. An agreed clinical interview guide for Multidimensional needs Assessment in Palliative Care (MAP) has recently been proposed.
objectiveTo evaluate the feasibility of implementing the MAP guide in clinical practice.
methodsA multicenter explanatory sequential mixed-methods feasibility study was conducted, assessing five indicators: a) acceptability to patients and family members (assessed by phone); b) participation (proportion of eligible patients assessed); c) applicability (time to administer); d) clinical utility as perceived by physicians; and e) implementation in practice. Twenty-four palliative care physicians across 10 services (outpatient, in-patient, domiciliary care) administered the MAP guide in 239 initial assessments of patients with advanced cancer. A focus group was conducted with 17 of the physicians to gather insights.
resultsIndicators of acceptability, participation, applicability, and perceived clinical utility were fulfilled in over 90% of interviews. Implementation fell just short of the criterion (78% of needs assessed vs. 80% threshold). Patients and families provided highly positive feedback on the appropriateness of the MAP guide. Physicians found it flexible and easy to integrate into clinical practice, helping them structure the initial assessment and offer a much more comprehensive assessment of patients' needs.
conclusionsThe study supports the feasibility of using the MAP guide to explore palliative care needs. The MAP guide can help ensure that professionals do not overlook unmet needs, which could increase suffering and undermine quality of life.
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.