Models, components, and outcomes of palliative and end-of-life care provided to adults living at home: A systematic review of reviews

S. Pask; C. Okwuosa; A. Mohamed; R. Price; J. Young; T. Curtis; S. Henderson; I. Winter-Luke; A. Sunny; R. L. Chambers; S. Greenley; T. Johansson; A. E. Bone; S. Barclay; I. J. Higginson; K. E. Sleeman; F. E. M. Murtagh; Fliss E. M. Murtagh

doi:10.1101/2025.02.14.25322267

Models, components, and outcomes of palliative and end-of-life care provided to adults living at home: A systematic review of reviews

S. Pask, C. Okwuosa, A. Mohamed, R. Price, J. Young, T. Curtis, S. Henderson, I. Winter-Luke, A. Sunny, R. L. Chambers, S. Greenley, T. Johansson, A. E. Bone, S. Barclay, I. J. Higginson, K. E. Sleeman, F. E. M. Murtagh, Fliss E. M. Murtagh^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Working paper/Preprint › Preprint

Abstract

BackgroundAgeing populations necessitate increased focus on home-based care. The best models and components for community-based palliative and end-of-life care are unknown. AimTo identify and synthesise review-level evidence on models of palliative and end-of-life care for adults living at home, and examine components of these models and their association with outcomes. DesignA review of narrative, scoping and systematic reviews, using key concepts established a priori from Firth et al. and Brereton et al.s model descriptions. Quality assessment used AMSTAR-2 or equivalent. Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database, Epistemonikos searched from inception to August 2024, supplemented by CareSearch, PROSPERO, and citation searches. ResultsFrom 6683 initial papers, n=66 reviews were included. Seven models of care were identified; by setting (in-home, outpatient); type of professionals (specialist, integrated, non-specialist); or mode (telehealth, education/training). Components included: holistic person-centred assessment, skilled professionals, access to medicines/care/equipment, patient/family support, advance care planning, integration of services, virtual/remote technology, and education. We categorised outcomes into: i) patient outcomes, ii) family/informal caregiver outcomes, iii) professional outcomes, and iv) service utilisation/cost outcomes. The in-home palliative care model was most researched with good evidence of positive benefit. Specialist and integrated models of care were next most researched, with evidence of improved patient and service utilisation outcomes. Cost-effectiveness evidence was lacking. ConclusionThis meta-level evidence supports provision of in-home palliative care, with most review level evidence showing positive effect on patient outcomes. There was also evidence to support specialist palliative care and integration of primary palliative care with specialist support. Key statementsO_ST_ABSWhat is already known about the topic?C_ST_ABSO_LICare at home for people approaching the last months or year of life has become increasingly important in recent years, due to the increase in deaths, multimorbidity, and preference of the majority for care at home. C_LIO_LIIndividual reviews of the evidence on palliative and end of life care at home have been undertaken, with some evidence of benefit. C_LI What this paper addsO_LIThis paper reports the overall evidence, which largely supports in-home palliative care, especially if delivered via specialist palliative care models or integrated palliative care models (where integration refers to coordination between specialist and non-specialist services). C_LIO_LIIt also provides evidence of benefit for education and training, both for informal family carers, and for professionals. C_LIO_LIDetailed narrative synthesis links models of care, with their components and sub-components, and related outcomes. C_LI Implications for practice, theory or policyThere is clear evidence supporting provision of in-home palliative care, with common components related to addressing (and delivering positive impact on) patients symptoms, psychological distress, and functional status.

Original language	Undefined/Unknown
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.14.25322267
Publication status	Published - 2025

Keywords

palliative medicine

Access to Document

10.1101/2025.02.14.25322267Licence: CC BY-NC

Cite this

Pask, S., Okwuosa, C., Mohamed, A., Price, R., Young, J., Curtis, T., Henderson, S., Winter-Luke, I., Sunny, A., Chambers, R. L., Greenley, S., Johansson, T., Bone, A. E., Barclay, S., Higginson, I. J., Sleeman, K. E., Murtagh, F. E. M., & Murtagh, F. E. M. (2025). Models, components, and outcomes of palliative and end-of-life care provided to adults living at home: A systematic review of reviews. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.14.25322267

@techreport{f044c29dc61d4b60a8767ce82ac3ab85,

title = "Models, components, and outcomes of palliative and end-of-life care provided to adults living at home: A systematic review of reviews",

abstract = "BackgroundAgeing populations necessitate increased focus on home-based care. The best models and components for community-based palliative and end-of-life care are unknown. AimTo identify and synthesise review-level evidence on models of palliative and end-of-life care for adults living at home, and examine components of these models and their association with outcomes. DesignA review of narrative, scoping and systematic reviews, using key concepts established a priori from Firth et al. and Brereton et al.s model descriptions. Quality assessment used AMSTAR-2 or equivalent. Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database, Epistemonikos searched from inception to August 2024, supplemented by CareSearch, PROSPERO, and citation searches. ResultsFrom 6683 initial papers, n=66 reviews were included. Seven models of care were identified; by setting (in-home, outpatient); type of professionals (specialist, integrated, non-specialist); or mode (telehealth, education/training). Components included: holistic person-centred assessment, skilled professionals, access to medicines/care/equipment, patient/family support, advance care planning, integration of services, virtual/remote technology, and education. We categorised outcomes into: i) patient outcomes, ii) family/informal caregiver outcomes, iii) professional outcomes, and iv) service utilisation/cost outcomes. The in-home palliative care model was most researched with good evidence of positive benefit. Specialist and integrated models of care were next most researched, with evidence of improved patient and service utilisation outcomes. Cost-effectiveness evidence was lacking. ConclusionThis meta-level evidence supports provision of in-home palliative care, with most review level evidence showing positive effect on patient outcomes. There was also evidence to support specialist palliative care and integration of primary palliative care with specialist support. Key statementsO_ST_ABSWhat is already known about the topic?C_ST_ABSO_LICare at home for people approaching the last months or year of life has become increasingly important in recent years, due to the increase in deaths, multimorbidity, and preference of the majority for care at home. C_LIO_LIIndividual reviews of the evidence on palliative and end of life care at home have been undertaken, with some evidence of benefit. C_LI What this paper addsO_LIThis paper reports the overall evidence, which largely supports in-home palliative care, especially if delivered via specialist palliative care models or integrated palliative care models (where integration refers to coordination between specialist and non-specialist services). C_LIO_LIIt also provides evidence of benefit for education and training, both for informal family carers, and for professionals. C_LIO_LIDetailed narrative synthesis links models of care, with their components and sub-components, and related outcomes. C_LI Implications for practice, theory or policyThere is clear evidence supporting provision of in-home palliative care, with common components related to addressing (and delivering positive impact on) patients symptoms, psychological distress, and functional status.",

keywords = "palliative medicine",

author = "S. Pask and C. Okwuosa and A. Mohamed and R. Price and J. Young and T. Curtis and S. Henderson and I. Winter-Luke and A. Sunny and Chambers, {R. L.} and S. Greenley and T. Johansson and Bone, {A. E.} and S. Barclay and Higginson, {I. J.} and Sleeman, {K. E.} and Murtagh, {F. E. M.} and Murtagh, {Fliss E. M.}",

year = "2025",

doi = "10.1101/2025.02.14.25322267",

language = "Undefined/Unknown",

type = "WorkingPaper",

}

Pask, S, Okwuosa, C, Mohamed, A , Price, R , Young, J, Curtis, T, Henderson, S, Winter-Luke, I, Sunny, A, Chambers, RL, Greenley, S, Johansson, T , Bone, AE, Barclay, S, Higginson, IJ , Sleeman, KE , Murtagh, FEM & Murtagh, FEM 2025 'Models, components, and outcomes of palliative and end-of-life care provided to adults living at home: A systematic review of reviews'. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.14.25322267

TY - UNPB

T1 - Models, components, and outcomes of palliative and end-of-life care provided to adults living at home: A systematic review of reviews

AU - Pask, S.

AU - Okwuosa, C.

AU - Mohamed, A.

AU - Price, R.

AU - Young, J.

AU - Curtis, T.

AU - Henderson, S.

AU - Winter-Luke, I.

AU - Sunny, A.

AU - Chambers, R. L.

AU - Greenley, S.

AU - Johansson, T.

AU - Bone, A. E.

AU - Barclay, S.

AU - Higginson, I. J.

AU - Sleeman, K. E.

AU - Murtagh, F. E. M.

AU - Murtagh, Fliss E. M.

PY - 2025

Y1 - 2025

N2 - BackgroundAgeing populations necessitate increased focus on home-based care. The best models and components for community-based palliative and end-of-life care are unknown. AimTo identify and synthesise review-level evidence on models of palliative and end-of-life care for adults living at home, and examine components of these models and their association with outcomes. DesignA review of narrative, scoping and systematic reviews, using key concepts established a priori from Firth et al. and Brereton et al.s model descriptions. Quality assessment used AMSTAR-2 or equivalent. Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database, Epistemonikos searched from inception to August 2024, supplemented by CareSearch, PROSPERO, and citation searches. ResultsFrom 6683 initial papers, n=66 reviews were included. Seven models of care were identified; by setting (in-home, outpatient); type of professionals (specialist, integrated, non-specialist); or mode (telehealth, education/training). Components included: holistic person-centred assessment, skilled professionals, access to medicines/care/equipment, patient/family support, advance care planning, integration of services, virtual/remote technology, and education. We categorised outcomes into: i) patient outcomes, ii) family/informal caregiver outcomes, iii) professional outcomes, and iv) service utilisation/cost outcomes. The in-home palliative care model was most researched with good evidence of positive benefit. Specialist and integrated models of care were next most researched, with evidence of improved patient and service utilisation outcomes. Cost-effectiveness evidence was lacking. ConclusionThis meta-level evidence supports provision of in-home palliative care, with most review level evidence showing positive effect on patient outcomes. There was also evidence to support specialist palliative care and integration of primary palliative care with specialist support. Key statementsO_ST_ABSWhat is already known about the topic?C_ST_ABSO_LICare at home for people approaching the last months or year of life has become increasingly important in recent years, due to the increase in deaths, multimorbidity, and preference of the majority for care at home. C_LIO_LIIndividual reviews of the evidence on palliative and end of life care at home have been undertaken, with some evidence of benefit. C_LI What this paper addsO_LIThis paper reports the overall evidence, which largely supports in-home palliative care, especially if delivered via specialist palliative care models or integrated palliative care models (where integration refers to coordination between specialist and non-specialist services). C_LIO_LIIt also provides evidence of benefit for education and training, both for informal family carers, and for professionals. C_LIO_LIDetailed narrative synthesis links models of care, with their components and sub-components, and related outcomes. C_LI Implications for practice, theory or policyThere is clear evidence supporting provision of in-home palliative care, with common components related to addressing (and delivering positive impact on) patients symptoms, psychological distress, and functional status.

AB - BackgroundAgeing populations necessitate increased focus on home-based care. The best models and components for community-based palliative and end-of-life care are unknown. AimTo identify and synthesise review-level evidence on models of palliative and end-of-life care for adults living at home, and examine components of these models and their association with outcomes. DesignA review of narrative, scoping and systematic reviews, using key concepts established a priori from Firth et al. and Brereton et al.s model descriptions. Quality assessment used AMSTAR-2 or equivalent. Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database, Epistemonikos searched from inception to August 2024, supplemented by CareSearch, PROSPERO, and citation searches. ResultsFrom 6683 initial papers, n=66 reviews were included. Seven models of care were identified; by setting (in-home, outpatient); type of professionals (specialist, integrated, non-specialist); or mode (telehealth, education/training). Components included: holistic person-centred assessment, skilled professionals, access to medicines/care/equipment, patient/family support, advance care planning, integration of services, virtual/remote technology, and education. We categorised outcomes into: i) patient outcomes, ii) family/informal caregiver outcomes, iii) professional outcomes, and iv) service utilisation/cost outcomes. The in-home palliative care model was most researched with good evidence of positive benefit. Specialist and integrated models of care were next most researched, with evidence of improved patient and service utilisation outcomes. Cost-effectiveness evidence was lacking. ConclusionThis meta-level evidence supports provision of in-home palliative care, with most review level evidence showing positive effect on patient outcomes. There was also evidence to support specialist palliative care and integration of primary palliative care with specialist support. Key statementsO_ST_ABSWhat is already known about the topic?C_ST_ABSO_LICare at home for people approaching the last months or year of life has become increasingly important in recent years, due to the increase in deaths, multimorbidity, and preference of the majority for care at home. C_LIO_LIIndividual reviews of the evidence on palliative and end of life care at home have been undertaken, with some evidence of benefit. C_LI What this paper addsO_LIThis paper reports the overall evidence, which largely supports in-home palliative care, especially if delivered via specialist palliative care models or integrated palliative care models (where integration refers to coordination between specialist and non-specialist services). C_LIO_LIIt also provides evidence of benefit for education and training, both for informal family carers, and for professionals. C_LIO_LIDetailed narrative synthesis links models of care, with their components and sub-components, and related outcomes. C_LI Implications for practice, theory or policyThere is clear evidence supporting provision of in-home palliative care, with common components related to addressing (and delivering positive impact on) patients symptoms, psychological distress, and functional status.

KW - palliative medicine

U2 - 10.1101/2025.02.14.25322267

DO - 10.1101/2025.02.14.25322267

M3 - Preprint

BT - Models, components, and outcomes of palliative and end-of-life care provided to adults living at home: A systematic review of reviews

ER -