ArticleBMJ open2025
Palliative care and its association with the quality of death in patients with advanced cancer in China: a cross-sectional study with a family caregivers' perspective.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Palliative Care Needs in Advanced Non-Malignant Chronic Conditions: A Qualitative Study of Greek Patients' and Caregivers' Perspectives.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Facing death in care: Nurses' lived experiences in the care of bedridden patients.Palliative & supportive care · 2026Article
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
objectivesTo determine the factors influencing palliative care utilisation in patients with advanced cancer and to assess its association with the quality of death (QOD).
designA cross-sectional study.
settingThis study was conducted in tumour hospitals in the Hunan and Sichuan provinces of China. In 2021, the country launched a 'palliative care standard wards' project, identifying 16 medical institutions as the first pilot sites.
participantsDeceased patients who met the admission criteria for a standard palliative care unit were the study subjects, and their caregivers were recruited for questionnaires.
interventionsNo interventions were applied in this study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: A self-reported questionnaire survey was administered to caregivers of deceased patients with advanced cancer in mainland China. Binary logistic regression was used to identify factors influencing palliative care utilisation. The association between utilisation of palliative care and the QOD was tested using an independent samples t-test.
resultsOf 947 patients, 342 (36.1%) received palliwiative care. Data were collected from 400 caregivers (42.2%). Palliative care utilisation was associate with intrusion operation (adjusted OR (aOR): 1.7, 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.92, p=0.032) and relationship with patients caregiver age (aOR=6.5, 95% CI: 3.6 to 12.7, p<0.001). Additionally, longer caregiving duration, high school or junioreducational level (aOR:=0.5, p=0.024), and caregiver retirement status were associated with palliative care utilisation. Patients receiving palliative care scored higher on the Good Death Inventory (96.2 (13.0) vs 107.22 (9.6), t = -9.8, p<0.000). The most significant differences were observed in the dimensions of 'passing away in a place that meets the patient's wishes,' 'unawareness of death' and 'remaining hopeful and happy.'
conclusionsPatient and caregiver characteristics influence palliative care utilisation, and use of palliative care contributes positively to most dimensions of the QOD. Future research should further explore multiple factors influencing palliative care utilisation and examine whether they contribute to the QOD.
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.