Effectiveness of Training Programs About a Palliative Care Approach: A Systematic Review of Intervention Trials for Health Care Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Palliative care (PC) training initiatives have proliferated to assist generalist health care providers (HCPs) develop skills for applying an early PC approach. To date, there is little synthesis of high-level evidence to review the content and effectiveness of these programs. To address this gap in knowledge, we conducted a systematic review of trials of training inventions to build PC competency in HCPs, according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration no. 271741). Materials and Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Clinical Trials for studies published since 2000. Eligible studies were trials assessing PC training for HCPs. Interventions had to address at least two of six PC-related components, adapted from the National Consensus Project: identification or assessment; illness understanding; symptom management; decision making; coping; and referral. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion, using Rayyan, and extracted relevant data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROB2 or ROBINS-I tools. Results: Of 1209 articles reviewed, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria, with the majority being conducted in the United States (n = 9) or Europe (n = 8). Nearly all studies (n = 19) collected data through self-reported surveys; administrative (n = 4), clinical outcomes (n = 4), or interaction analysis (n = 6) data were also or solely used. Interventions featured didactic, skill-based training followed by role-play and/or individual coaching. Communication around illness understanding was the most taught PC component. Few interventions involved comprehensive PC training, with 12 studies representing 3 or less of the 6 framework components. Most studies (n = 16) reported a significant positive impact on at least one outcome, most often HCP self-reported outcomes. Conclusions: While many of these interventions demonstrated improved confidence among HCPs in the PC components taught, findings were mixed on more objective outcome measures. Further trial-based evidence is required on comprehensive PC training to help inform these interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".