Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41652633›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2026

Exploring the factors that prevent or facilitate palliative care at 'home' for adults experiencing structural vulnerability: a scoping review.

Alexandra Stewart, Ami Bitschy, Katherine Kortes-Miller, Kristina Smith, Zahra Premji, Alexandra Grillo, Kelli Stajduhar

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2026. 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

7 authors.

Alexandra StewartInstitute on Aging & Lifelong Health, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada. alexandrastewart@uvic.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-6754-168X
Ami BitschyInstitute on Aging & Lifelong Health, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-9496-4531
Katherine Kortes-MillerSchool of Social Work, Centre for Education and Research on Aging & Health, Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Rd, Thunder Bay, ON, P7B 5E1, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0777-890X
Kristina SmithInstitute on Aging & Lifelong Health, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5600-1043
Zahra PremjiLibraries, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6899-0528
Alexandra GrilloSchool of Social Work, Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Rd, Thunder Bay, ON, P7B 5E1, Canada.
Kelli StajduharApproaches to Care in Aging and Community Health, Institute on Aging & Lifelong Health, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2381-4712

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile most people express a preference to be cared for and die at home, not all people have access to a safe or stable home. Government policies often position home death as a proxy measure of quality end-of-life care, yet structurally vulnerable populations, including those who are precariously housed, homeless, or living in supportive or transitional housing, are frequently excluded from this possibility. This scoping review aims to summarize the current literature on the factors that facilitate or prevent palliative care at ‘home’ for structurally vulnerable adults.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) methodology, searching eight academic databases and relevant grey literature sources. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, and addressed three core eligibility criteria: housing status, health status, and high-income country context. Data were extracted and analyzed using narrative synthesis and thematic analysis.

resultsA total of 33 studies were included. Five overarching themes influenced the ability to remain at home at end-of-life: systemic complexity, financial resources, value systems, social supports, and education and training. The review highlights how systemic barriers, including restrictive housing and healthcare policies, fragmented care structures, and stigmatization, limit opportunities for home-based care. Notably, narrow definitions of home and dominant cultural values about appropriate places to die further constrained access to palliative care in non-traditional settings. At the same time, flexible, community-based models and strong relational supports were identified as facilitators of dying in place.

conclusionThis review underscores that people experiencing structural vulnerability are too often denied the choice of where they die. Addressing inequities in end-of-life care requires policy reforms that support flexible service models and recognize diverse forms of home, including shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing, as legitimate places of care and dying. Findings provide an evidence base to inform equity-oriented policies aimed at expanding end-of-life options for structurally vulnerable populations. REGISTRATION: A protocol for this review was registered in the Open Science Framework registries: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/X8TJ7 .

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesPalliative CareTerminal CareVulnerable PopulationsAdultHousingHumansIll-Housed PersonsEnd-of-life careEquityHome-based palliative careHomelessnessHousing instabilityPalliative careStructural vulnerability

Identifiers

PMID41652633
PMCPMC12922341

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.