ArticleBMC palliative care2026
Developing patient-reported measures of serious illness care quality: synthesis of input from patients, family caregivers, health care professionals, and other experts.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExperts have highlighted the need for standardized measures of patient and family experiences of serious illness care. To address this need, we developed surveys that can be used to derive patient-reported quality measures for use in assessment of home-based serious illness programs and community-based serious illness care.
methodsIn preparation for field testing of draft patient survey instruments, we conducted an environmental scan of existing surveys and measures; convened an expert panel of primary care providers, survey research experts, patient representatives, leaders of serious illness programs, stakeholder organizations, and accrediting groups; conducted in-depth interviews with 23 seriously ill individuals and/or their family caregivers and 9 health care providers; and refined draft survey instruments via multiple rounds of cognitive interviews with 53 seriously ill individuals and/or their family caregivers.
resultsExpert panelists and in-depth interviewees agreed that the following core aspects of serious illness care were priorities for a patient survey: communication, access and responsiveness, shared decision making and advance care planning, symptom management, care continuity and coordination, emotional and spiritual support, attention to social determinants of health (through referrals and connections to resources), attention to caregiver needs, and medication management. Based on cognitive testing, survey wording was simplified (e.g., "health care options if you got sicker" for advance care planning, avoidance of terms like "coordinate"), items were reworded to encompass both telehealth and in-person visits, and the term "health care professionals" was finalized for assessment of community-based care.
conclusionsThrough engagement of seriously ill individuals, family caregivers, and providers, we identified high-priority concepts for assessment in the Serious Illness Surveys for Home-Based Programs and Community-Based Care, allowing for collection of actionable information to inform quality monitoring and improvement.
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.