ArticleFamily practice2026
Palliative and end-of-life care in people with and without intellectual disabilities in primary care: identification, survival time, and healthcare utilization.
Article in Family 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
backgroundEvidence on end-of-life care (EOLC) provision for people with intellectual disabilities in primary care is limited.
methodsA retrospective cohort study of adults (18+ years) who died between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2021 from linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. Age- and gender-adjusted prevalence of comorbidities for people with and without IDs was compared by EOLC record assignment. Survival time and healthcare utilization after the first EOLC record was compared by ID status. Underlying cause of death was investigated.
resultsOf 1.1 million adults identified, 2147 (21.8%) with IDs and 313 847 (28.4%) without IDs (unadjusted) had an EOLC record. Among the ID population, those with an EOLC record had disproportionately higher prevalence of dysphagia [+6.5 percentage points (95% CI: 4.9, 8.1)] and dementia [+5.2 percentage points (3.9,6.7)] than those without an EOLC record. Survival after the first EOLC record was shorter for people with IDs compared to those without IDs: 26% [absolute risk: 0.26 (0.24, 0.28)] vs 16% [absolute risk: 0.16 (0.16, 0.17)] died within 7 days. Primary care and hospital utilization rates were also lower [incidence rate ratio 0.96 (0.84, 0.97) and 0.42 (0.41, 0.44), respectively]. The most common cause of death in the ID population was cancer (38% of all deaths) followed by chromosomal conditions (11%).
conclusionsEOLC needs in primary care appear to be identified later for people with IDs. Their primary and hospital healthcare utilization patterns are also lower, despite having unique and complex health needs.
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.