ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Evaluating Palliative Care Needs in Patients with Advanced Non-Malignant Chronic Conditions: An Umbrella Review of Needs Assessment Tools.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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 in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis: A Scoping Review of Identification, Interventions, and Implementation Barriers and Facilitators.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of thePalliative & 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesPatients with advanced non-malignant chronic conditions experience illness burdens and palliative care needs comparable to those of oncology patients, yet palliative care is often introduced late. Identifying individuals with potential palliative care needs is complex, and although multiple tools exist, the most appropriate approach for assessing needs in this population remains unclear. This umbrella review aimed to identify and evaluate tools used to systematically assess palliative care in adults with advanced non-malignant chronic conditions, with a specific focus on their content, structure, and psychometric properties.
methodsAn umbrella review of systematic reviews was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance. Four electronic databases (Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PubMed, and PsycINFO) were searched from inception to 30 June 2025. Eligible systematic reviews were screened, critically appraised, and synthesized narratively.
resultsSeven systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, collectively identifying 35 unique needs-assessment tools. Five tools (SPICT, GSF-PIG, QUICK GUIDE, NECPAL, and P-CaRes) incorporated both general and disease-specific palliative care indicators. At the same time, four (PC-NAT, SPEED, NAT, and IPOS) addressed needs across physical, psychological, social, and spiritual domains. Psychometric data were available for six tools across three reviews. The original NAT and SPICT demonstrated good reliability; however, the Dutch version of the NAT showed poor validity. SPEED and one unnamed palliative care tool showed good reliability, whereas the Surprise Question demonstrated unclear validity. Italian-SPICT and Israeli-NECPAL exhibited strong content validity.
conclusionsDespite limited evidence, the NAT: PD-HF shows particular promise for identifying palliative care needs in patients with heart failure. Tools such as SPICT and NECPAL are widely used and adapted for advanced non-malignant chronic conditions, but further psychometric evaluation is required. Additional studies are needed to clarify the clinical utility of these tools for broader implementation in assessing palliative care needs.
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.