ArticleBMC palliative care2026
Evaluating quality of palliative care from the perspective of healthcare professionals in different care settings: development of the quality of palliative care questionnaire - staff.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimPalliative care is provided at different care settings by different professionals, making management and organisation of services crucial. A comprehensive tool to systematically evaluate the quality of palliative care and identify potential areas for organizational improvement is highly warranted. The aim was to develop and examine the content validity of a questionnaire evaluating quality of palliative care from the perspectives of healthcare professionals in different care settings: the Quality of Palliative Care Questionnaire – Staff (QPCQ-S).
methodsThis methodological study included booth qualitative and quantitative methods. The QPCQ-S was developed from existing questionnaires. Questions were modified to represent broad perspectives of palliative care before being reviewed by an expert group consisting of researchers in palliative care. A preliminary version was reviewed by healthcare professionals (n = 16), and the response options were examined, based on responses from 98 healthcare professionals who had participated in a development project. Cognitive interviews (n = 13) were performed with healthcare professionals. Finally, the questionnaire was evaluated by 421 healthcare professionals within a nursing home context.
resultsConvergent validity was supported by the expert and advisory groups, and cognitive interviews. Problems with ceiling and floor effects was demonstrated for some items, which resulted in a more differentiated response scale for these items. A majority of the respondents reported the questions as important or fairly important (99.3%), and that the questions had provided them with the opportunity to give a true picture of palliative care (78.9%). However, a majority reported that the questions were difficult or fairly difficult to answer (64.0%), significantly more among nurse assistants compared to nurses, physicians and other professional with academic education (p = 0.031).
conclusionThe QPCQ-S showed good content validity, and the questions were reported important, giving a true picture of palliative care. Careful preparation is needed considering by whom and in what context the CPCQ-S are best used for evaluation of 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.