ArticlePalliative & supportive care2025
Health professionals' and leaders' views on routine using patient-centered outcome measures in a Chinese palliative care unit: A qualitative study.
Article in Palliative & supportive 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA person-centered outcomes-based quality improvement program is lacking within palliative care in Mainland China. The well-established Australian Palliative Care Outcome Collaboration (PCOC) national model improves palliative care quality.
objectivesThis study aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators perceived by healthcare providers to integrating the PCOC model in a Chinese hospital-based palliative care unit.
methodsA qualitative descriptive study was conducted using semi-structured focus group and individual interviews. A rapid deductive analysis approach was selected for data analysis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework was used to guide the study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
resultsEighteen healthcare professionals participated in this study, four focus group interviews and five individual interviews were completed. Barriers to the PCOC integration included clinical application and workload concerns (patients in terminal stage, patients' dialects, workload concerns, and staff shortages); attitudinal barriers (negative attitudes toward PCOC); psychological barriers (numbness to their work) and barriers related to knowledge and self-efficacy (lack of knowledge, capacity, and self-efficacy in palliative care). Facilitators included adapting the program to local contexts, ongoing education and feedback, effective PCOC data use, a supportive work and clinical environment and staff's perceived advantages of the model across clinical, research and process domains. SIGNIFICANCE OF
resultsThe successful integration of the PCOC program hinges on local adaptation, improved data utilization, education, and IT support. In regions with less developed palliative care, enhancing professionals' knowledge and self-efficacy is crucial. Incorporating assessment and clinical response protocols into technology can accelerate palliative care development and implementation.
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.