ReviewJournal of hospice and palliative care2025
Palliative Care Integration in Oncology: A Review and Update.
Review in Journal of hospice and 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.
- The PALLI-AI Framework: An Evidence-Informed Checklist for Designing and Reporting Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence Tools in Palliative and End-of-Life Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Barriers and facilitators to implementing the European code of cancer practice in a rural and coastal setting: a qualitative study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Palliative care (PC) is increasingly recognized as an essential component of high-quality cancer care, with evidence from randomized trials and meta-analyses demonstrating that it improves quality of life, mood, and goal-concordant end-of-life care. Despite these benefits, PC integration has been inconsistent, with many patients still receiving PC later in their disease course. Current models of integration include outpatient co-located PC clinics, inpatient consultation services, community- and home-based programs, and more recent innovations, such as telehealth and stepped approaches. These models have shown clear benefits; however, they are frequently organized by care settings rather than patient-specific needs, resulting in both underuse and inefficiency. Emerging evidence has begun to clarify the mechanisms through which PC provides patient benefits. Symptom control, coping support, longitudinal communication, and existential or spiritual interventions are among the active ingredients that are most consistently associated with improvements in patient outcomes. Recognition of these mechanistic drivers highlights the potential for precision PC, in which care is tailored to the unique drivers of each patient's needs. Implementation of precision PC requires embedding validated patient-reported outcomes and structured referral algorithms into oncology workflows, enabling real-time triage of targeted interventions. Interoperable technology, workforce expansion through the training of non-specialists, and policy reforms that support scalable delivery models, such as telehealth and nurse-led programs, will be essential for closing gaps in terms of access and equity. Precision PC offers a pragmatic framework for aligning limited resources with the diverse and evolving needs of patients with cancer, ensuring timely, individualized, and sustainable integration into modern oncology.
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.