Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Mar;23(3):389-396.
doi: 10.1089/jpm.2019.0349. Epub 2019 Oct 23.

Comparing Specialty and Primary Palliative Care Interventions: Analysis of a Systematic Review

Affiliations

Comparing Specialty and Primary Palliative Care Interventions: Analysis of a Systematic Review

Natalie C Ernecoff et al. J Palliat Med. 2020 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Investigators have tested interventions delivered by specialty palliative care (SPC) clinicians, or by clinicians without palliative care specialization (primary palliative care, PPC). Objective: To compare the characteristics and outcomes of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of SPC and PPC interventions. Design: Systematic review secondary analysis. Setting/Subjects: RCTs of palliative care interventions. Measurements: Interventions were classified SPC if delivered by palliative care board-certified or subspecialty trained clinicians, or those with extensive clinical experience; all others were PPC. We abstracted data for each intervention: delivery setting, delivery clinicians, outcomes measured, trial results, and Cochrane's Risk of Bias. We conducted narrative synthesis for quality of life, symptom burden, and survival. Results: Of 43 RCTs, 27 tested SPC and 16 tested PPC interventions. SPC interventions were more comprehensive (4.2 elements of palliative care vs. 3.1 in PPC, p = 0.02). SPC interventions were delivered in inpatient (44%) or outpatient settings (52%) by specialty physicians (44%) and nurses (44%); PPC interventions were delivered in inpatient (38%) and home settings (38%) by nurses (75%). PPC trials were more often of high risk of bias than SPC trials. Improvements were demonstrated on quality of life by SPC and PPC trials and on physical symptoms by SPC trials. Conclusions: Compared to PPC, SPC interventions were more comprehensive, were more often delivered in clinical settings, and demonstrated stronger evidence for improving physical symptoms. In the face of SPC workforce limitations, PPC interventions should be tested in more trials with low risk of bias, and may effectively meet some palliative care needs.

Keywords: randomized clinical trials; risk of bias; specialty palliative care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Figures

FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.
Palliative care elements, delivery setting, delivery clinician, and types of outcomes measured in trials of SPC and PPC by percent. PPC, primary palliative care; SPC.

References

    1. Kavalieratos D, Corbelli J, Zhang D, et al. : Association between palliative care and patient and caregiver outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2016;316:2104–2114 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, et al. : Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;363:733–742 - PubMed
    1. Bakitas M, Lyons KD, Hegel MT, et al. : Effects of a Palliative Care Intervention on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Advanced Cancer: The Project ENABLE II randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;302:741. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lupu D: Estimate of current hospice and palliative medicine physician workforce shortage. J Pain Symptom Manage 2010;40:899–911 - PubMed
    1. Murray SA, Boyd K, Sheikh A, et al. : Developing primary palliative care. BMJ 2004;329:1056–1057 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types