ArticleBMC palliative care2026
Added value of a specialized mobile palliative care team compared to the usual care in the primary care setting of Croatia: a 3-month prospective cohort study.
Article 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCroatia has been implementing a Mobile multidisciplinary specialist palliative care team (MMSPCT), a home-based specialized palliative care service at the primary healthcare level since 2011. This study aimed to evaluate whether a MMSPCT performs better than usual care, in terms of health/well-being, experience with care, and cost outcomes.
methodsA 3-month prospective cohort study was performed during 2017-2019. Two cohorts were compared: MMSPCT vs. usual care cohort. Sample size was based on the literature data, ranging 150-200 patients per group. A SELFIE questionnaire with selected standardised instruments was used to assess health/well-being, experience with care, and cost (on four categories: drugs, medical devices, hospitalisation for acute and chronic care), at the beginning (T0), after 1 (T1), and after 3 months (T2). Propensity score weighting using subclassification method was used to reduce selection bias by grouping exposed and control group patients into four subclasses based on similar propensity scores. The average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) was estimated using linear models with propensity score weighing and clustering based on the subclasses of propensity scores. Cost outcome variables were analysed using hurdle models due to zero-inflation in the data.
results410 palliative care patients were included, 220 in MMSPCT and 190 in usual care cohort; 94 patients (42.7%) vs. 124 (65.3%) completed the study at 3-months follow-up. Baseline characteristics: age, gender and number of health conditions were balanced after propensity score weighting, but not living situation, education level, marital status and smoking. After 1 and 3 months, MMSPCT patients scored significantly better on person centeredness: 0.69 (3.83%) and 1.87 (10.39%) units higher score and compassionate care: 3.33 (2.78%) and 6.14 (5.12%) points more. After 3 months, they scored significantly better on physical (4.1 points more) and emotional functioning (5.18 points more) and had significantly lower measured healthcare costs. More MMSPCT patients died at their preferred place of death (48% vs. 23%).
conclusionMMSPCT at primary care level may offer added value to palliative patients in Croatia and may result in a net saving in measured healthcare costs. Further clinical research is needed with a longer follow-up period and children's cohorts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42919350What 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.