ArticleBMC palliative care2026
Feasibility and acceptability of a rural palliative care intervention for patients with heart failure (RuPAL-HF).
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople with heart failure (HF) have unmet palliative care (PC) needs, particularly in rural areas. Collaborative care models may meet these needs by connecting primary care teams with urban palliative care specialists. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the Rural Palliative Care for Patients with Heart Failure (RuPAL-HF) intervention.
methodsWe recruited patients with HF from a rural Maine primary care clinic. A complex care team embedded in primary care was trained in PC. Specialty PC clinicians supported the team through weekly collaborative care meetings, providing coaching and case-specific guidance. Specialty palliative care clinicians also provided tele-PC when needed. Feasibility was assessed via recruitment, referral-to-completion rates, completion of advance care planning and surveys as well as collaborative care meeting attendance. Acceptability was assessed using qualitative methods through semi-structured interviews with patients, clinicians, and complex care team members.
resultsThe intervention was feasible and acceptable to patients, clinicians, and complex care team members. 31 patients were approached, 13 enrolled, and 12 (92.3%) completed all intervention components. All patients completed a serious illness conversation with the complex care team and 11 (84.6%) with the specialty PC physician. 12 patients (92.3%) completed an advance directive and 8 (61.5%) a Portable Medical Orders Form. Patients reported that goals-of-care conversations were not overly emotionally challenging, and they valued the telehealth option. All care team members attended trainings, completed surveys, and participated in ≥90% of collaborative care meetings. Complex care team members reported increased confidence and skills after trainings.
conclusionThe RuPAL-HF intervention was feasible and acceptable for patients, clinicians, and complex care team members. Telehealth appeared feasible as a mechanism to support access to specialty PC. Further research is needed to evaluate this intervention in other rural sites, care teams, and health conditions.
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.