ArticlePalliative care and social practice2026
Palliative psychological care in Germany: Results of a national online survey with psychologists and psycho-oncologists in specialist palliative care settings.
Article in Palliative care and social practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Knowledge about the structure and type of palliative psychological care is limited and heterogeneous in most countries. Due to the lack of legal regulations in Germany, it is unclear how psychologists are integrated into multiprofessional palliative care teams (MPCT). Objectives: To describe how palliative psychology is organised in the various specialist palliative care settings for adults in Germany, how psychologists/psycho-oncologists assess their professional attitude and how satisfied they are with their work. Design: Online survey with psychologists/psycho-oncologists working in specialist palliative settings in Germany. Methods: The quantitative data was analysed descriptively and inferentially (correlations, group differences) using SPSS; category-based evaluation of free text comments. Results: One hundred and five of 210 respondents worked in a predominantly specialist palliative setting, mainly on palliative care units (137/210), mostly in combination with other settings (158/210), with a small proportion working in specialist palliative home care (29/210), palliative care support team within a hospital (28/210) or a hospice (16/210); the professional attitude did not differ between the predominantly and less palliative setting or the levels of professional experience. A high level of satisfaction with integration into and perceived appreciation by the MPCT, perceived effectiveness, supervision/intervision/exchange within the MPCT and overall job satisfaction was reported; when dissatisfaction was mentioned, the most common reasons given were a lack of resources, unfavourable structures or communication deficits; the predominantly palliative setting had a positive effect on satisfaction with integration into the MPCT, perceived effectiveness and overall satisfaction; a higher level of professional experience also showed a positive influence on perceived effectiveness. Conclusion: Although psychologists/psycho-oncologists were present in all palliative settings, they were not regularly a core member of the MPCT. Besides structural differences in palliative psychological care, there was also heterogeneity in the qualifications of the psychologists/psycho-oncologists. These results make the structure of psychological care in palliative care facilities in Germany more transparent and could be used to promote palliative psychology expertise as an integral part of multiprofessional 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.