ArticleBMC palliative care2026
How community-based palliative care is delivered for older adults: a scoping review.
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
backgroundCommunity-based palliative care has shown promising results in supporting older adults to remain at home, whilst providing high-quality care. However, how such initiatives are organised and delivered in practice varies widely, and evidence regarding service models and factors influencing delivery for older adults remains fragmented. This scoping review aimed to map and synthesize existing community-based palliative care initiatives for older adults, identifying their key service components, delivery approaches, and determinants of successful implementation.
methodsA scoping review was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus for studies published between January 2005 and July 2025. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize the key components of community-based palliative care initiatives for older adults. A narrative synthesis was then undertaken to code implementation strategies using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy and to integrate determinants influencing implementation, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).
resultsSixteen studies describing 17 community-based palliative care initiatives for older adults were included, encompassing 56,581 older adults with mean ages ranging from 66.1 to 88.0 years. The initiatives predominantly addressed advanced life-limiting illness. Most initiatives were multidisciplinary and employed a home-based service model; all provided symptom management, care coordination, and advance care planning. Common implementation strategies included: 'Using advisory boards and working groups', 'Conducting educational meetings', 'Conducting educational outreach visits', and 'Revising professional roles.' Factors influencing delivery operated across multiple levels, including alignment with older adults' needs, organisational readiness and coordination, workforce capacity, and characteristics of the intervention. Limited integration across care settings and variable provision of staff training were commonly reported challenges.
conclusionsCommunity-based palliative care initiatives for older adults are mainly home-based and multidisciplinary, with consistent emphasis on symptom management, coordination, and advance care planning. Successful implementation of initiatives depends on aligning services with older adults' needs, enhancing organizational readiness and cross-sector coordination, engaging patients and caregivers, and tailoring interventions to local contexts.
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.