Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41310558›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2025

Stakeholder consensus of quality indicators for end-of-life cancer care in Malaysia: a modified Delphi study.

Wen Jun Wong, Wen Yea Hwong, Cindy Cy Oun Teoh, Sylvia Ann McCarthy, Ramani Subramaniam Kalianan, Chirk Jenn Ng

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Wen Jun WongCentre for Clinical Epidemiology, Institute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, No. 1, Jalan Setia Murni U13/52, Setia Alam, Shah Alam, Selangor, 40170, Malaysia. wwjun@crc.moh.gov.my.
Wen Yea HwongCentre for Clinical Epidemiology, Institute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, No. 1, Jalan Setia Murni U13/52, Setia Alam, Shah Alam, Selangor, 40170, Malaysia.
Cindy Cy Oun TeohDepartment of Palliative Medicine, Selayang Hospital, Selayang-Kepong Hwy, Batu Caves, Selangor, 68100, Malaysia.
Sylvia Ann McCarthyClinical Services Department, Hospis Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Ramani Subramaniam KaliananCentre for Clinical Epidemiology, Institute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, No. 1, Jalan Setia Murni U13/52, Setia Alam, Shah Alam, Selangor, 40170, Malaysia.
Chirk Jenn NgCentre for Population Health Research and Implementation, SingHealth, Singapore, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnd-of-life care is an essential component of cancer care. Good end-of-life care improves quality of life for the dying individuals and their loved ones. This study aimed to compile a list of quality indicators (QIs) endorsed by experts, for assessing the quality of end-of-life care for cancer patients in Malaysia.

methodsEligible QIs were first identified through a scoping review, which formed the basis for a five-round online modified Delphi survey that was undertaken to reach expert panel agreement. Firstly, the relevance of each QI was rated by a panel comprising healthcare professionals (HCPs) in oncology and palliative care, caregivers, and patient advocates using a 9-point Likert scale. Secondly, the feasibility of extracting these indicators from medical charts was evaluated using the same rating scale; this was assessed only by HCPs due to their familiarity with the documentation practices. QIs with a median score ≥ 7 and with ≥ 75% of rating ≥ 7 were considered endorsed.

resultsOf the 47 experts invited, 39 participated (response rate 83.0%): 31 HCPs, five caregivers and three patient advocates. From an initial list of 64 indicators, 31 were endorsed across 10 domains, including measures related to: symptom management such as pain, dyspnoea, and other physical symptoms (e.g., assessment of delirium and agitation) (n = 11/64); psychological and social aspects of care (e.g., depression assessment) (n = 2/64), treatment modalities (e.g., antiemetics for chemotherapy) (n = 1/64); hospital and community palliative care services (e.g., home care visits) (n = 5/64); advanced care planning (e.g., resuscitation preference) (n = 2/64); continuity and coordination of care (e.g., multidisciplinary team consultation) (n = 5/64); place of death and care (e.g., preferred place of death) (n = 4/64); and medications for respiratory secretion (n = 1/64). Some unendorsed indicators included those from the domains of hospitalisation (e.g., intensive care unit admission) (n = 3/64) and spiritual care (e.g., spiritual needs assessment) (n = 2/64).

conclusionsA comprehensive set of 31 indicators was identified. These QIs can be used for evaluating the quality of end-of-life care received by cancer patients and serve as a foundation for future quality improvement initiatives. Further studies are needed to validate these QIs in real-world clinical practice and assess the feasibility and reliability of extracting these indicators from medical charts.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsQuality Indicators, Health CareStakeholder ParticipationTerminal CareAdultDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMalaysiaMaleMiddle AgedPalliative CareSurveys and QuestionnairesCancerEnd-of-life careMalaysiaModified delphiPalliative careQuality indicatorsQuality measuresTerminal care

Identifiers

PMID41310558
PMCPMC12752362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.