ArticlePalliative care and social practice2026
A scoping review of palliative care delivery approaches, challenges, and context-specific strategies for cancer patients in Africa.
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. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The Global Organization Board of the Cancer Association Network projected global number of cancer cases to reach 35 million by 2050. In Africa, patients with newly diagnosed cancer are projected to double by 2030, underscoring the need for comprehensive strategies encompassing prevention, early detection, treatment, and palliative care (PC). However, PC service in Africa remains fragmented, often lacking holistic and continuous care delivery, with more emphasis on facility-based services. Objective: This scoping review aims to synthesize available evidences on PC approaches for cancer patients in Africa, challenges in PC delivery, and suggested measures to improve PC. Method: This scoping review employed the Joanna Briggs Institute review methodology. Extensive search of published and unpublished literature in English was conducted using databases including MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google. Records of 1242 were identified; after removing 309 duplicates, 933 citations were screened for abstract review using Rayyan software. Three reviewers assessed abstracts, and full texts resulting in inclusion of 27 studies. Findings: The findings are organized under three themes. The first theme addressed PC approaches in Africa, including home-based, community-based, facility-based, integrated, and comprehensive models. Despite the availability of multiple PC approaches, most countries in Africa primarily practice pain relief, with limited adaptation of the psychological, financial, spiritual, and end-of-life care need of the patients. The second theme identifies the challenges in comprehensive PC provision that includes restrictive opioid laws, under-funding, shortages of workforce and resources, and gaps between PC needs and available services. The third theme synthesizes suggested measures for improvements which indicate the necessity of a shift toward comprehensive, patient, and caregiver centered models with smooth referral practices. These suggestions also emphasize policy reforms to improve access to medicines and funding, and education for health workers and community volunteers. Conclusion: In Africa, PC remains largely inaccessible, fragmented, and of poor quality despite the existence of different approaches. To bridge this gap, implementation of a comprehensive care model that ensures continuity of care among home, community, and facility is crucial. Review registrations: Open Science Framework (osf.io/np9vq).
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.