The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluation of a palliative care service: problems and pitfalls
Open accessAbstract
Objective : To evaluate a palliative care home support team based on an inpatient unit. Design : Randomised controlled trial with waiting list. Patients in the study group received the service immediately, those in the control group received it after one month. Main comparison point was at one month. Setting - A city of 300 000 people with a publicly funded home care service and about 200 general practitioners, most of whom provide home care. Main outcome measures : Pain and nausea levels were measured at entry to trial and at one month, as were quality of life for patients and care givers' health. Results : Because of early deaths, problems with recruitment, and a low compliance rate for completion of questionnaires, the required sample size was not attained. Conclusion : In designing evaluations of palliative care services, investigators should be prepared to deal with the following issues: attrition due to early death, opposition to randomisation by patients and referral sources, ethical problems raised by randomisation of dying patients, the appropriate timing of comparison points, and difficulties of collecting data from sick or exhausted patients and care givers. Investigators may choose to evaluate a service from various perspectives using different methods: controlled trials, qualitative studies, surveys, and audits. Randomised trials may prove to be impracticable for evaluation of palliative care.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Grunfeld, E. (2004) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1031205 · Cited by 963
Impact of an Inpatient Palliative Care Team: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Gade, G., Venohr, I., Conner, D., McGrady, K., Beane, J., Richardson, R. H., Williams, M. P., Liberson, M., Blum, M., & Penna, R. D. (2008) · Journal of Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1089/jpm.2007.0055 · Cited by 564
Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials
Prescott, Counsell, Gillespie, Grant, Russell, Kiauka, Colthart, Ross, Shepherd, & Russell (1999) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta3200 · Cited by 390
Hui, D., Glitza, I., Chisholm, G., Yennu, S., & Bruera, E. (2013) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.27854 · Cited by 250
Psychological interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer
Mustafa, M., Carson-Stevens, A., Gillespie, D., & Edwards, A. G. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004253.pub4 · Cited by 244
Metadata
- Authors
- McWhinney, I. R., Bass, M. J., & Donner, A.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1994-11-19
- Volume
- 309
- Issue
- 6965
- Pages
- 1340-1342
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1981722242
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of a palliative care service: problems and pitfalls. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.309.6965.1340
- The paper
- McWhinney, I. R., Bass, M. J., & Donner, A. (1994). Evaluation of a palliative care service: problems and pitfalls. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6965.1340
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.