SynthesisBMC palliative care2025
Decision-making factors related to palliative care and hospice use in the community: a systematic review based on Andersen's behavioural model of health services use.
Synthesis in BMC palliative care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCommunity-based palliative care and hospice is essential for meeting the preferences of terminally ill patients and reducing healthcare costs. However, systematic research on the decision-making factors concerning the patients and family caregivers remains limited. This study aimed to identify and categorise the factors related to the patients' and family caregivers' decision-making in the use of palliative care or hospice within the community.
methodsThis systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42024612049) was conducted using the CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Medline databases. Studies focusing on the patients' and family caregivers' decisions regarding palliative care and hospice were included, excluding the studies focusing solely on healthcare professionals. Four authors independently assessed the eligible studies and resolved discrepancies through discussion. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool 2018. The data were qualitatively synthesised using a narrative approach and a constant comparison model. Decision-making factors were categorised based on Andersen's behavioural model of health services use taking into consideration predisposing, enabling, and need factors.
resultsSeven studies, four quantitative and three qualitative, were included. Sixteen factors, including five predisposing factors (age, education level, people in the household, experiences with institutional care, and death experience), four enabling factors (physician's disclosure, communication partner, communication context, and information about options), and seven need factors (acknowledgement of terminal status, knowledge, perception, end-of-life wishes, caregiver's commitment, preference for dying at home, and health condition), were identified.
conclusionsPatient and caregiver characteristics, personal experience, communication context, knowledge, preferences, and physical condition were the key factors related to the decision to use palliative care and hospice. This study highlights the importance of addressing these factors to support informed and patient-centred decision-making in end-of-life care.
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.