ArticleBMC palliative care2026
Evaluating the impact of a home palliative programme for terminally ill non-cancer patients with end-stage organ failure and severe frailty in Singapore.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate Programme IMPACT, a home-based palliative care initiative for terminally ill non-cancer patients with end-stage organ failure and severe frailty at the end-of-life, in achieving palliative outcomes, honouring end-of-life care preferences, and reducing acute healthcare utilisation.
methodsPatients with non-cancer diagnoses, prognosis of ≤ 6 months, palliative goals of care, and preference for home as a place of care or death were enrolled between October 2017 and December 2021. First, we employed a single-arm prospective cohort design to assess symptom control and concordance between preferences and delivered care. Second, we compared healthcare utilisation, costs and place of death between programme decedents and non-cancer controls without palliative care identified retrospectively. Utilisation was analysed with Poisson regression, costs with generalised linear models (gamma log link), and logistic regression for home deaths, adjusting for baseline confounders.
resultsA total of 387 patients were enrolled in the programme. Patients experienced significant clinical benefit, with mean symptom scores improving by 2.5 points on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Concordance between preferences and outcomes exceeded 94% for CPR status and medical treatments and 89% for place of death. Compared with controls, programme decedents incurred significantly lower utilisation and costs: admissions and length of stay (Rate Ratio [RR]: 0.65-0.85, p < 0.005), admission-related and total costs (Mean Ratio [MR]: 0.56-0.75, p < 0.001), and ED visits and costs (RR & MR: 0.69-0.81, p < 0.008). They were also 16.6 times more likely to die at home (95% CI: 10.2-27.0; p < 0.001).
conclusionHome-based palliative care improves symptom control, aligns care with preferences, and reduces acute hospital use and costs among this population.
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.