ArticleCureus2026
Caregivers' Perceptions of the Impact of Palliative Care: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPopulation aging and the rising prevalence of multimorbidity have contributed to increased levels of dependency, placing informal caregivers at the forefront of home-based care delivery. Although palliative care (PC) aims to support both patients and their families, evidence regarding caregivers' own perceptions and experiences of this role remains limited. Furthermore, the extent to which community PC teams shape caregivers' lived experience is still insufficiently understood.
methodsThis qualitative phenomenological study involved conducting four semi-structured interviews with caregivers who were supported by a community PC team. Data were collected at home, audio-recorded, and fully transcribed. Content analysis was performed using pre-defined themes (Referral Process, Caregiving Experience, Expectations, Impact of PC on Caregiving Experience, Expectations vs. Reality, and Suggestions for Improvement). The saturation point was determined by consensus among the research team.
resultsAll participants were women who took on most of the caregiving tasks, such as hygiene, feeding, managing medication, and accompanying patients to medical appointments. They reported fatigue, poorer sleep quality, and emotional ambivalence regarding their role. Caregivers valued the technical and relational proximity of PC, particularly home visits, accessibility via telephone, practical guidance, and coordination with rehabilitation teams. Perceived late referrals, waiting times, and shortages of human resources were recurrent themes. Social life, work, and financial domains were particularly affected, with unmet needs relating to respite, bureaucratic barriers, and access to social support. DISCUSSION: Community PC increased caregivers' sense of safety, competence, and reassurance, particularly through easily accessible, home-based support. However, broader needs, particularly in relation to personal time, social participation, and navigating social and labor rights, remain insufficiently addressed. Structural limitations in formal support services and referral delays can further exacerbate caregiver burden.
conclusionHome-based care relies heavily on caregivers who have very limited time and substantial responsibilities. To improve the caregiving experience and promote equitable, sustainable end-of-life care at home, it is essential to strengthen early PC involvement, improve accessibility (including structured telephone support), and integrate social and labor policies, such as providing respite options, simplifying access to benefits, and protecting caregivers' financial security.
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.