Background: There is evidence that community-based palliative care programmes can improve patient outcomes and caregiver experiences cost-effectively. However, little is known about which specific components within these programmes contribute to improving the outcomes.
Aim: To systematically review research that evaluates the effectiveness of community-based palliative care components.
Design: A systematic mixed studies review synthesising quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods study findings using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PROSPERO: ID # CRD42022302305.
Data sources: Four databases were searched in August 2021 (CINAHL, Web of Science, ProQuest Federated and PubMed including MEDLINE) and a close review of included article references. Inclusion criteria required articles to evaluate a single, specific component of a community-based palliative care programme either within an individual programme or across several programmes.
Results: Overall, a total of 1,674 articles were identified, with 57 meeting the inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, 21 were qualitative, 25 were quantitative and 11 had mixed methods. Outcome measures consistently examined included patient/caregiver satisfaction, hospital utilisation and home deaths. The components of standardised sessions (interdisciplinary meetings about patients), volunteer engagement and early intervention contributed to the success of community-based palliative care programmes.
Conclusions: Certain components of community-based palliative care programmes are effective. Such components should be implemented and tested more in low- and middle-income countries and key and vulnerable populations such as lower-income and marginalised racial or ethnic groups. In addition, more research is needed on the cost-effectiveness of individual programme components.
Keywords: education; older people; palliative care; systematic review; telehealth; volunteers.
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.