ArticleBMC palliative care2026
A complex intervention to support the use of sedative drugs in specialist palliative care: results from the iSedPall pilot study.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical decision support for potentially sedating drugs in palliative care: a mixed-methods pilot study.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInternational studies show intentional sedation to relieve suffering to be a common and relevant treatment in specialist palliative care. The EAPC framework for using sedative drugs has currently been updated and national recommendations have been disseminated. However, there was a lack of hands-on materials targeted for healthcare professionals and of information materials for patients and informal caregivers to ensure patient-centred care. The iSedPall study group developed a complex intervention to further support the use of sedative drugs in specialist palliative care. The following pilot study aimed at examining the feasibility of the intervention being applied in different settings and by different professions.
methodsA sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was applied between 02/23 and 01/24. An online survey (pre-post-test) assessed quantitative data on the feasibility of the outcome indicator `confidence in professional skills`, primary feasibility outcomes, and the implementation process. Focus groups added to the quantitative results. Four specialist palliative care services (inpatient and home care) piloted the intervention for nine months.
resultsGlobal mean scores of primary feasibility outcomes proved the intervention as acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for inpatient and home care settings. The outcome indicator seems to be adequate for measuring changes in healthcare professionals` confidence, especially for physicians. The relevance of the intervention, its impact on practice, and the implementation process have been judged heterogeneously. Promoting (e.g., personal exchange, educational materials) and inhibiting factors (e.g., lack of time and technical resources) for implementation have been stated.
conclusionsAn implementation study would benefit from adaptations regarding the intervention, study design, and implementation strategy. Especially the nursing perspective has to be considered to a greater extent for strengthening the palliative care approach. Context-specific factors seem to play a key role in implementation. Therefore, training of in-group champions, considering local technical and personal resources, and actively engaging the team could mitigate potential barriers and foster the success. Our findings will inform a full-scale implementation study to further explore the use of the intervention by healthcare professionals in clinical practice.
trial registrationThe study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00027241; Date of registration: 10/12/2021; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do ).
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.