ArticleEuropean journal of public health2026
National palliative care laws in Europe: do they enable access and effectively promote the development of palliative care within health systems? A comparative multimethod analysis.
Article in European journal of public health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Access to palliative care (PC) is a fundamental right. While an increasing number of European countries have adopted national PC laws, it remains unclear how effective these laws are in advancing access and enabling development within health systems. This was a comparative multimethod study combining systematic analysis of national PC legislation with semi-structured interviews with national experts. Legal texts were analysed using a standardized extraction framework aligned with the WHO PC development model. Interview data provided interpretive context, contextualized legislative intent, and perceived system-level reach of laws. Fourteen countries had a national legal mandate explicitly addressing PC, either through standalone laws or binding frameworks within the health system. Laws varied widely in their aspiration and operational strength. Although almost half (6/14, 43%) explicitly recognized PC as a right, only France and Italy combined rights-based recognition with explicit mechanisms for implementation, governance, and financial sustainability. National experts linked stronger operational design with greater service development and integration, whereas predominantly declarative laws had limited practical relevance. Across countries, gaps were greatest in provisions related to research, access to essential medicines, and workforce development. National laws can function as important public health instruments to support access to PC and foster system-level development; enforceable implementation mechanisms and integration within health systems are crucial. Legislation should be understood as an enabling instrument whose impact depends on governance, financing, political commitment and health-system implementation.
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.