ArticlePalliative care and social practice2026
Self-assessed palliative care competence of healthcare professionals in a Finnish university hospital: A mixed methods study.
Article in Palliative care and social practice, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While the need for palliative care (PC) is growing, both national and international studies have shown insufficient PC competence among healthcare professionals. Good PC both reduces healthcare costs and promotes quality of life. It is therefore necessary to examine the current state of healthcare professionals' level of PC competence and identify the areas in particular need of improvement. Objective: To describe the self-assessed PC competence of healthcare professionals working in a university hospital, and to study which background factors are associated with it, in order to identify areas of PC requiring improvement and further education. Design and methods: This mixed methods study with a convergent design was conducted in one hospital in Finland in 2024. The participants (n=100) were asked to rate their self-assessed PC competence using a 30-item instrument developed for the study. The data were analysed using both quantitative (descriptive statistics, comparisons between groups) and qualitative (inductive content analysis) methods. Results: Healthcare professionals' self-assessed PC competence was "Good" or above in 18/30 items. Nurses and physicians generally rated their competence higher than did those representing other professions; competence was rated the highest in Oncology and in General Medicine and Geriatrics, respectively. Work experience in healthcare overall did not correlate with the level of competence, whereas experience in PC specifically did. In the open-ended responses, participants identified factors that promote, hinder, or otherwise impact self-assessed competence. Conclusion: PC competence was considered important, and 18/30 items were rated "Good" or "Very good". However, the study revealed areas potentially in need of improvement and more education, both indirectly as lower scores for self-assessed competence and directly as comments provided by the participants. To provide high-quality PC, more education is required especially concerning advance care planning, guardianship, and multiprofessional cooperation. Further research is needed regarding competence among representatives of different professions.
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.