CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 206Ethics in Clinical ResearchPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic Care

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A systematic review of reasons for gatekeeping in palliative care research

Open access
Kars, Marijke C, van Thiel, Ghislaine JMW, van der Graaf, Rieke, Moors, Marleen, de Graeff, Alexander, van Delden, Johannes JM·2016·Palliative Medicine
DOI 10.1177/0269216315616759
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: When healthcare professionals or other involved parties prevent eligible patients from entering a trial as a research subject, they are gatekeeping. This phenomenon is a persistent problem in palliative care research and thought to be responsible for the failure of many studies. Aim: To identify potential gatekeepers and explore their reasons for gatekeeping in palliative care research. Design: A ‘Review of Reasons’ based on the systematic Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses approach and a thematic synthesis. Data source: PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and PsycINFO from 2000 to May 20 2015 were searched. Studies in children (aged <18 years) and patients with dementia were excluded. Results: Thirty papers on gatekeeping in palliative care research were included. Five groups of potential gatekeepers were identified: healthcare professionals, research ethics committees, management, relatives and researchers. The fear of burdening vulnerable patients was the most reported reason for gatekeeping. Other reasons included ‘difficulty with disclosure of health status’, ‘fear of burdening the patient’s relatives’, ‘doubts about the importance or quality of the study’, ‘reticent attitude towards research and (research) expertise’ and ‘logistics’. In hospice and homecare settings, the pursuit of comfort care may trigger a protective attitude. Gatekeeping is also rooted in a (perceived) lack of skills to recruit patients with advanced illness. Conclusion: Gatekeeping is motivated by the general assumption of vulnerability of patients, coupled with an emphasis on the duty to protect patients. Research is easily perceived as a threat to patient well-being, and the benefits appear to be overlooked. The patients’ perspective concerning study participation is needed to gain a full understanding and to address gatekeeping in palliative care research.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0269216315616759

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 46 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Hudson P, 2005, Eur J Palliat care, 12, 165
  2. Abernethy AP, 2010, J Support Oncol, 8, 139

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–206 of 206

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kars, M. C., van Thiel, G. J., van der Graaf, R., Moors, M., de Graeff, A., & van Delden, J. J.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Department of Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Corresponding author
Kars, Marijke C
ORCID
Kars, Marijke C
Venue
Palliative Medicine
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2015-11-17
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
533-548
ISSN
  • 0269-2163 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-030X
DOI
10.1177/0269216315616759
OpenAlex
W2181137729
Cited by
205
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 3
FWCI
1.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Palliative Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
gatekeeping, palliative care research, barriers to research participation, patient recruitment, vulnerable patients, research ethics committees, healthcare workers, duty to protect, patient perspectives, advanced disease
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Palliative Care, Patient Selection, Gatekeeping, Biomedical Research, Young Adult

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