IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1004436.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benefits of specialist palliative care by identifying active ingredients of service composition, structure, and delivery model: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression

Author

Listed:
  • Miriam J Johnson
  • Leah Rutterford
  • Anisha Sunny
  • Sophie Pask
  • Susanne de Wolf-Linder
  • Fliss E M Murtagh
  • Christina Ramsenthaler

Abstract

Background: Specialist palliative care (SPC) services address the needs of people with advanced illness. Meta-analyses to date have been challenged by heterogeneity in SPC service models and outcome measures and have failed to produce an overall effect. The best service models are unknown. We aimed to estimate the summary effect of SPC across settings on quality of life and emotional wellbeing and identify the optimum service delivery model. Methods and findings: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression. Databases (Cochrane, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ICTRP, clinicaltrials.gov) were searched (January 1, 2000; December 28, 2023), supplemented with further hand searches (i.e., conference abstracts). Two researchers independently screened identified studies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing SPC intervention versus usual care in adults with life-limiting disease and including patient or proxy reported outcomes as primary or secondary endpoints. The meta-analysis used, to our knowledge, novel methodology to convert outcomes into minimally clinically important difference (MID) units and the number needed to treat (NNT). Bias/quality was assessed via the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to synthesize endpoints between 2 weeks and 12 months for effect on quality of life and emotional wellbeing expressed and combined in units of MID. From 42,787 records, 39 international RCTs (n = 38 from high- and middle-income countries) were included. For quality of life (33 trials) and emotional wellbeing (22 trials), statistically and clinically significant benefit was seen from 3 months’ follow-up for quality of life, standardized mean difference (SMD in MID units) effect size of 0.40 at 13 to 36 weeks, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.21, 0.59], p

Suggested Citation

  • Miriam J Johnson & Leah Rutterford & Anisha Sunny & Sophie Pask & Susanne de Wolf-Linder & Fliss E M Murtagh & Christina Ramsenthaler, 2024. "Benefits of specialist palliative care by identifying active ingredients of service composition, structure, and delivery model: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(8), pages 1-21, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1004436
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004436
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004436
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004436&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004436?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1004436. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.