SynthesisBMC palliative care2026
Experiences, barriers and enablers of stroke end-of-life care: a systematic review with mixed-methods synthesis.
Synthesis 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite advances in stroke care, 12% of patients die within 30 days of stroke highlighting the requirement for high-quality end-of-life care (EoLC) within stroke services. EoLC aims to improve the quality-of-life of patients facing death whilst also supporting their families. EoLC after stroke can be difficult due to complex stroke-specific challenges and little clinical guidance. There is a lack of knowledge and understanding of current provision of poststroke EoLC and the barriers and enablers to quality EoLC. Therefore, the aim of this review was to identify the experiences, expectations, information needs and communication preferences of staff, patients and their families and loved ones regarding hospital-based EoLC after stroke.
methodsA systematic review and synthesis of research published between 2007-2023, updating and extending the 2007 review by Stevens et al. [1]. Eligibility: primary research studies; reporting the views and experiences of staff, patients and/or their families; EoLC provided to adult hospital patients with ischaemic stroke or primary intracerebral haemorrhage; EoLC provided within 30-days post-stroke; qualitative, mixed method and quantitative studies; published in English from 2007 onwards. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane and EMBASE databases were searched up to November 2023.
resultsA total of 28 studies were included. Most were conducted in high-income countries, predominately within hospital based services in Europe (n = 19) and North America (n = 7). Two studies were conducted in middle-income countries and none in low-income countries. Three studies used mixed methods; 13 qualitative, and 12 quantitative. Most data were from healthcare staff (n = 708), four studies included patients' (n = 367) views and experiences and nine studies included n = 251 next-of-kin. Data synthesis identified three themes describing the barriers and enablers to the delivery of effective EoLC, which can be used to support improvements in practice: 1. recognising dying within the context of uncertainty; 2. navigating relationships between staff and families; and 3. the lived experience of the stroke unit environment.
conclusionsStroke unit EoLC is shaped by interconnected dimensions of recognising dying, prognostic uncertainty, and the culture and environment of care delivery. Limited progress in research since 2007, particularly in relation to patient-reported experiences and intervention development, underscores the need for renewed research focus to inform best practice and enhance support for patients and families.
trial registrationPROSPERO [CRD42020212895].
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.