This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

43/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Context Effective communication is central to high-quality end-of-life care. Objectives This study examined the prevalence of general practitioner (GP)-patient discussion of end-of-life topics (according to the GP) in Italy, Spain, Belgium, and The Netherlands and associated patient and care characteristics. Methods This cross-sectional, retrospective survey was conducted with representative GP networks. Using a standardized form, GPs recorded the health and care characteristics in the last three months of life, and the discussion of 10 end-of-life topics, of all patients who died under their care. The mean number of topics discussed, the prevalence of discussion of each topic, and patient and care characteristics associated with discussions were estimated per country. Results In total, 4396 nonsudden deaths were included. On average, more topics were discussed in The Netherlands (mean=6.37), followed by Belgium (4.45), Spain (3.32), and Italy (3.19). The topics most frequently discussed in all countries were "physical complaints" and the "primary diagnosis," whereas "spiritual and existential issues" were the least frequently discussed. Discussions were most prevalent in The Netherlands, followed by Belgium. The GPs from all countries tended to discuss fewer topics with older patients, noncancer patients, patients with dementia, patients for whom palliative care was not an important treatment aim, and patients for whom their GP had not provided palliative care. Conclusion The prevalence of end-of-life discussions varied across the four countries. In all countries, training priorities should include the identification and discussion of spiritual and social problems and early end-of-life discussions with older patients, those with cognitive decline if possible, and those with non-malignant diseases.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Evans, N., Costantini, M., Pasman, H. R., Van den Block, L., Donker, G. A., Miccinesi, G., et al. (2014). End-of-life communication: a retrospective survey of representative general practitioner networks in four countries. Journal of pain and symptom management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.04.008

Vancouver

Evans N, Costantini M, Pasman HR, Van den Block L, Donker GA, Miccinesi G, et al. End-of-life communication: a retrospective survey of representative general practitioner networks in four countries. Journal of pain and symptom management. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.04.008. PMID: 23932176.

BibTeX

@article{evans2014-23932176,
  author  = {Evans, N. and Costantini, M. and Pasman, H. R. and Van den Block, L. and Donker, G. A. and Miccinesi, G. and Bertolissi, S. and Gil, M. and others},
  title   = {{End-of-life communication: a retrospective survey of representative general practitioner networks in four countries}},
  journal = {Journal of pain and symptom management},
  year    = {2014},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.04.008},
  pmid    = {23932176},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.04.008}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a cross-sectional study. Everyone is measured once, so it cannot show which came first. Read it as a snapshot of how two things go together at one moment.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

The mean number of topics discussed, the prevalence of discussion of each topic, and patient and care characteristics associated with discussions were estimated per country.
Results In total, 4396 nonsudden deaths were included.

Study details

Study designcross-sectional
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 43/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of pain and symptom management)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	4 / 12	A snapshot of people at one point in time
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 23932176)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	25 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100.
Total	43 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in End-of-life care from nearby years

Also tagged “palliative”

858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “palliative”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on End-of-life care

See all studies in End-of-life care →