Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41793130›Full record

SynthesisJournal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID2026

Key Factors for Quality End-of-Life Care for People With Intellectual Disabilities. A Critical Interpretive Synthesis Review Using a 'Best-Fit' Framework Approach.

Margaret Haigh, Philip McCallion, Mary McCarron, Pavithra Pavithra, Martin McMahon

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID, 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

5 authors.

Margaret HaighSchool of Nursing & Midwifery, The University of Dublin, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Philip McCallionSchool of Social Work, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5129-6399
Mary McCarronSchool of Nursing & Midwifery, The University of Dublin, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Pavithra PavithraSchool of Nursing & Midwifery, The University of Dublin, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Martin McMahonSchool of Nursing & Midwifery, The University of Dublin, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

Health Research Board
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this review was to develop a theoretical framework to guide understanding of the key factors in quality end-of-life care for people with intellectual disabilities.

methodA systematic review was conducted using a critical interpretive synthesis methodology and a 'best-fit' framework approach to develop a new theoretical framework. Databases were searched using a wide-ranging search strategy. Broad eligibility criteria were applied. Data were extracted from a purposive sample of relevant papers for the synthesis.

resultsOf 1270 retrieved records, 40 papers were selected for inclusion in the synthesis. From this, a new theoretical framework was developed comprising three themes-'a personal approach to care', 'an involved network' and 'an enabling infrastructure'.

conclusionThe theoretical framework presented reflects the integration of a range of perspectives and provides a more developed understanding of the key factors in quality end-of-life care for people with intellectual disabilities.

Indexed as

Intellectual DisabilityQuality of Health CareTerminal CareHumanscritical interpretive synthesisend‐of‐life careintellectual disabilityquality care

Identifiers

PMID41793130
PMCPMC12966885

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.