ArticlePalliative care and social practice2026
General practitioners' relational familiarity with home-dwelling patients in the palliative phase: Basis - or bias - for individualised care.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: An ageing population has increased the need for home-based palliative care. General practitioners (GPs) are central to continuity of care, yet time pressure and organisational constraints can challenge person-centred practice grounded in relational familiarity with patients and families. Objectives: This study aims to explore how GPs navigate the relational familiarity in home-based palliative care and whether it functions as a basis or a bias for individualised care. Design and methods: A secondary hermeneutic analysis was conducted, utilising data from two qualitative studies involving 21 GPs. These datasets focused on dignity-preserving care and shared decision making in palliative contexts. The hermeneutic circle was applied in an iterative process to interpret the in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. Study Design: A qualitative, explorative, and descriptive design grounded in hermeneutic methodology. Results: Two overarching themes emerged: (1) Relational familiarity: A cornerstone of complex dimensions, where familiarity enabled trust, continuity and tailored care; however, it also created overfamiliarity that narrows perspective, blurs boundaries and burdens GPs. (2) Variability in engagement and follow-up, which reflected differences in individual GPs' interests, systemic constraints and the involvement of other healthcare professionals. While relational familiarity facilitated person-centred care, it was unevenly distributed, creating disparities in the quality of care. Conclusion: Relational familiarity is key to person-centred palliative care, fostering trust and continuity. However, it can blur boundaries, create emotional strain and contribute to inequities compounded by systemic challenges. Interdisciplinary collaboration and flexible care models are needed to adapt to patient needs and ensure equitable access. Future research should examine the impact of relational familiarity and the role of systemic reforms to enhance palliative 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.