SynthesisBMC palliative care2026
Implementing patient-centred outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice. An updated systematic review of facilitators and barriers.
Synthesis in BMC palliative care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Palliative care among cancer patients in Georgia: System-level gaps identified through health-related quality of life discrepancies.Journal of public health research · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient-centred outcome measures (PCOMs), when well implemented, are powerful tools facilitating patient, family and clinical communication to better respond to patient needs. Their routine use in palliative care practice still faces challenges.
objectiveTo update a systematic review of PCOMs implementation, reviewing and synthesising new evidence on facilitators, barriers, lessons learned, measures used, models of implementation, costs, implementation outcomes, and consequences in clinical practice.
methodsWe searched eight information sources supplemented by hand-searching and citations of the original review and studies identified by the expert advisory committee. This prospectively registered review included studies using a PCOM during clinical care of adult patients with advanced disease in all settings and extracted data on: PCOMs used, models of implementation, facilitators, barriers, lessons learned, costs, and implementation outcomes. We employed narrative synthesis and tabulated findings, following all PRISMA reporting guidelines.
resultsWe included 114 studies. A major new facilitator was the integration of electronic/digital PCOMs into Information Technology systems. Main barriers remain largely unchanged and relate to healthcare professionals' beliefs. Implementation was highlighted as a complex intervention, needing planning, assessment and fine tuning throughout. Sixty-two included studies mentioned at least one implementation outcome. Eighteen models, frameworks and theories were identified in 25 included studies. No studies reported on costs of implementation.
conclusionThis work reveals the complexity of implementing PCOMs in palliative care practice. The main clinical and research implications of our findings highlight the central importance of staff engagement and training staff in PCOM tools, communication strategies, and cultural competence.
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.