ArticleClinical interventions in aging2026
Construction of Outcome Quality Evaluation Indicators for Home Hospice Care in Older Patients with Terminal Cancer in China: A Delphi Study.
Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: With the rapid aging of the population and the increasing prevalence of terminal cancer among older adults worldwide, the demand for high-quality home hospice care is growing. However, there is a lack of culturally appropriate and systematic outcome quality evaluation indicators. This study aimed to construct a set of outcome quality evaluation indicators for home hospice care in older patients with terminal cancer in China, guided by the Harmony Nursing Theory. Methods: A three-phase methodological design was employed. First, a 12-member multidisciplinary research team was established. Second, preliminary indicators were developed through a literature review of 18 relevant studies and qualitative interviews with 12 healthcare professionals. Third, two rounds of Delphi expert consultation were conducted to refine and validate the indicators. A pilot test was subsequently performed to assess feasibility. We calculated the expert positive coefficient (response rate), expert authority coefficient, and expert opinion coordination coefficient (Kendall's W). Results: In the first round of Delphi consultation, 24 questionnaires were distributed and 22 were returned, yielding a response rate of 91.7% In the second round, 22 questionnaires were distributed and all were returned (100% response rate). The expert authority coefficient was 0.96 in both rounds. Kendall's W was 0.247 and 0.296 in the first and second rounds, respectively. After the first round, three indicators were deleted, fifteen indicators were revised, and four indicators were added. Following the second round, two indicators were modified. The outcome quality evaluation indicator for home hospice care consisted of 4 first-level indicators, 12 second-level indicators, and 45 third-level indicators. Conclusion: This study developed a culturally relevant and methodologically sound outcome quality evaluation indicator for home hospice care in older patients with terminal cancer in China. The indicators provide a tool for evaluating care quality, guiding clinical practice, and improving patient-centered outcomes in home hospice settings.
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.