ArticleBMC palliative care2026
Primary or specialist care at home: multicenter validation study of the "CP.BA.SPE 2025" questionnaire for the identification of the level of palliative care in advanced cancer patients.
Article in BMC palliative care, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReliable tools to discriminate between primary and specialist home palliative care are scarce, and no questionnaire has yet been validated in domiciliary oncology practice. The aim of the study was to validate the 17-item CP.BA.SPE 2025 questionnaire for identifying advanced cancer patients who need specialist home palliative care.
methodsCross-sectional multicentre study (pilot+multicentre validation) conducted in eight Home Palliative Care Units (HPCU) across Emilia-Romagna, Italy (March 2022-June 2024). The CP.BA.SPE 2025 was completed together with the HPCU’s independent judgement of the appropriate care level (gold standard). Item weights were derived with multivariable logistic regression; internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson-20), inter-rater reliability (Cohen’s κ), calibration (Hosmer–Lemeshow) and discrimination (ROC Area Under Curve-AUC) were calculated. A total score ≥14 defined “complex” cases. 543 consecutive adults with metastatic or locally-advanced cancer and Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status ≤50 were assessed at first home visit.
resultsThe CP.BA.SPE 2025 questionnaire scores ranged 0-36.5. With the 14-point cut-off, sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.74-0.84) and specificity 0.82 (95% CI 0.78-0.87), AUC 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.91), Brier score 0.14. Inter-rater agreement among individual professionals was excellent (κ 0.83-0.92); agreement between HPCU and an external comparison team was moderate (κ 0.43). Internal consistency was acceptable (Kuder-Richardson-20 = 0.65). The tool classified 251/543 patients (46.3%) as complex, aligning with international estimates of specialist-care need.
conclusionsCP.BA.SPE 2025 is quick to administer, reproducible and shows good diagnostic accuracy for directing advanced cancer patients to the appropriate level of home palliative care. Its adoption could foster equitable resource allocation within home-care networks; external and longitudinal validation are recommended.
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.