ReviewPediatric research2026
Mapping the palliative care needs of children with cancer: a scoping review through the bio-psycho-socio-spiritual lens.
Review in Pediatric research, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPaediatric palliative care (PPC) is essential in alleviating the multidimensional burden of cancer for children and their families, yet their needs remain insufficiently understood across diverse settings. This scoping review mapped the palliative care needs of children with cancer through the bio-psycho-socio-spiritual lens, examining how these needs relate to quality of life and highlighting gaps in current practice.
methodsA systematic search was conducted across six databases for studies published in English between January 2014 and December 2024, guided by PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) and Arksey and O'Malley's framework.
resultsForty-six studies from 22 countries were included, with most originating from high-income settings and limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. Marked disparities were observed between high-income and low- and middle-income settings, particularly in the representation of social and spiritual domains and the availability of structured paediatric palliative care services. Physical symptoms such as pain and fatigue were consistently reported, while emotional distress, social isolation, and caregiver burden were common but often lacked structured interventions. Spiritual needs were the least explored, reflecting a significant gap in holistic care. The majority of studies focused on hospital-based settings, with minimal attention to home and community care.
conclusionFindings underscore substantial unmet PPC needs across all domains, particularly in resource-limited contexts. There is an urgent need for culturally sensitive, family-centred, and standardised approaches that integrate child- and caregiver perspectives. This review provides evidence to guide clinical practice, inform policy, and shape future research agendas in paediatric palliative oncology. IMPACT: This scoping review synthesises evidence on the multidimensional palliative care needs of children with cancer across bio-psycho-socio-spiritual framework. It integrates fragmented evidence into a single, holistic map of paediatric palliative care needs across physical, psychological, social, and spiritual domains. It informs clinical practice, outcome measurement, and policy by highlighting unmet and underrepresented palliative care needs in paediatric oncology. This work informs clinical practice, outcome selection, and policy development for integrated paediatric palliative oncology services.
Identifiers
42098421What 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.