ArticlePloS one2026
Implementing palliative reasoning in multiprofessional palliative care: A participatory action research in the Netherlands.
Article in PloS one, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextIn the Netherlands, two interventions exist to support healthcare professionals in assessing palliative care needs and providing multidimensional generalist palliative care. Separate use hindered communication, interprofessional collaboration, and multidimensional care. To address this, the two existing interventions were integrated into a single multiprofessional intervention, Palliative Reasoning. The Palliative Reasoning Working Method (PRWM) was developed to support its implementation in daily practice.
objectivesTo iteratively adapt and implement the PRWM in primary care, hospice, and nursing home settings, and to explore determinants, implementation strategies, implementation outcomes, and healthcare professionals perceived impact.
methodsA multi-method participatory action research with three iterative cycles was conducted between October 2020 and January 2022 in Dutch primary care, hospice, and nursing home settings. Earlier phases included practice analysis and co-design of the PRWM. In this phase, PRWM was adapted and implemented within 20 multiprofessional teams. Primary outcomes were adaptation and implementation (acceptability, adoption, feasibility, fidelity, and sustainability); secondary outcome concerned healthcare professionals' perceived impact. FRAME guided adaptation documentation. A logic model, informed by CFIR, ERIC and COM-B, explored implementation outcomes. Qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed deductively and descriptively, respectively.
resultsFourteen content adaptations and seven supporting materials were developed. A logic model depicted key determinants, strategies, mechanisms, and outcomes of implementation. The PRWM was perceived as feasible and acceptable, improving recognition of palliative care needs, person-centered care, nursing empowerment, and team collaboration. Implementation proceeded largely as planned, adapted to local contexts, and continued in most teams. Integration into electronic health records and organizational embedding were crucial for sustainability. Healthcare professionals reported increased knowledge, motivation, and leadership skills.
conclusionPRWM shows promise for embedding Palliative Reasoning into routine palliative care across primary, hospice, and nursing home settings, strengthening proactive, person-centered, and collaborative practice, especially through nursing empowerment. Sustainable implementation requires behavioral-change strategies and supportive organizational and digital infrastructure.
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.