ArticleBMC palliative care2026
Facilitators of and barriers to high-quality care at end-of-life: experiences of terminally ill patients and their relatives.
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
backgroundTo ensure coherence and continuity of care for individual patients, it is necessary to improve collaboration between healthcare systems as well as between healthcare systems and patients. The objective of the study was to gain knowledge about the experiences of terminally ill patients and their relatives with the healthcare system to identify facilitators of and barriers to high-quality care in the last stage of patients' lives.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with terminally ill patients and their relatives. The data were analysed using content analysis.
resultsSix patients and four relatives participated in the study. The analysis identified five themes: (1) continuity, coherence and timing: significance and challenges; (2) conversations about end-of-life: the need for an individual approach; (3) being seen and trusted; (4) "small" things may have a great significance; and (5) relatives have their own needs. Among patients and relatives who felt that the healthcare system had the overall overview and was present with the necessary help at the right time, the healthcare system provided a secure frame within which they could devote their energy to dealing with the impending farewell and trying to foster a high quality of life every day. However, in cases in which the healthcare system was not perceived to have the overall overview, patients and relatives became insecure and had to exert energy and effort to navigate the healthcare system themselves. One of the most important things for patients and relatives was that there was clear agreement regarding who was responsible for what and where they could call for help.
conclusionThe findings highlight the importance of continuity of care, an individual approach and the need to trust the patients. Adherence to these findings can help healthcare professionals and institutions improve end-of-life 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.