ArticlePalliative medicine2025
'Do I actually even need all these tablets?' A qualitative study exploring deprescribing decision-making for people in receipt of palliative care and their family members.
Article in Palliative medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Deprescribing decisions in palliative care: a qualitative meta-synthesis of multi-stakeholder experiences and influencing factors.BMC palliative care · 2026Pooled it
- Outcomes of deprescribing for people with life-limiting conditions: A systematic review.Palliative medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Causes of medication errors in community pharmacies: A meta-ethnography and systematic review.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- Approaches to deprescribing cardiovascular medications in patients receiving palliative care: a scoping review.Clinical hypertension · 2026Review
- Shared decision-making and deprescribing to support anti-thrombotic therapy (dis)continuance for persons living with cancer in their last phase of life: A realist synthesis.PLoS medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor people in receipt of palliative care, where polypharmacy is common and medication burden is high, there remains limited knowledge around the decision-making processes that underpin deprescribing; for example, recent deprescribing studies have focused on wider issues of identifying polypharmacy in palliative care contexts. However, little is known about the specific challenges of, and preferences towards, decision-making to support the deprescribing for people in receipt of palliative care.
aimTo explore decision-making processes that underpin deprescribing approaches, based on the experiences of people in receipt of palliative care, and their family member(s).
designAn explorative qualitative study involving in-person semi-structured interviews, analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. SETTING/
participantsTwenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted with people in receipt of palliative care (
resultsTwo overarching themes were developed - the first reflected the need to address patient understanding by 'laying the foundations of deprescribing decision-making'. The second theme, 'having a voice in deprescribing decision-making', reflected desires to (pro)-actively involve patients and their family member(s) within these processes.
conclusionThere is a need to take a balanced, person-centred and shared approach to deprescribing decision-making for people receiving palliative care. Co-design strategies offer one approach to further explore this.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.