ArticleBMJ open2026
Communication during out-of-hours primary care contacts for people with a terminal illness: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 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
objectiveTo summarise what is known about communication during out-of-hours primary care contacts for people with a terminal illness.
designA scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews and conducted in accordance with Arksey & O'Malley's methodological framework for scoping reviews. DATA SOURCES: Searches of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and EMBASE were conducted from inception to 23 July 2024, alongside grey literature searches and hand searching reference lists of relevant reviews. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Sources were eligible if they provided evidence about communication between people with a terminal condition, their families and/or healthcare professionals during contacts with out-of-hours primary care services. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted by two independent researchers following Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews. Findings were thematically synthesised to create a narrative account of the evidence.
resultsOf the 1745 records identified, 18 studies were included in the review. Most used qualitative interviews and/or focus groups. Barriers to good communication included a lack of continuity of care, problems relating to remote consultations, the delegitimising of help seeking, and the challenges of conducting specialist palliative care consultations within a generalist out-of-hours system. Facilitators to good communication included the availability of information about patients and families out of hours, an empathetic and confident approach from out-of-hours professionals, and support from colleagues.
conclusionsThe scoping review showed that there is limited research focusing specifically on end-of-life communication in out-of-hours primary care settings. Further research is needed, particularly using observations or recordings of real interactions. There are several challenges to communication in this setting, but providing clinicians with access to palliative care summaries, alongside training and support in this specialised communication, can facilitate good end-of-life communication with patients and their families.
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.