Next Article in Journal
Ethical Challenges Regarding Cosmetic Surgery in Patients with Body Dysmorphic Disorder
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluating Post-Market Adverse Events of The New Hepatitis C Therapies Using FEARS Data
Previous Article in Journal
Cervical Cancer Screening among Female Refugees in Jordan: A Cross-Sectional Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 10
Issue 7
10.3390/healthcare10071344
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Palliative Care Landscape in the COVID-19 Era: Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research

by
Hammoda Abu-Odah
1,2,3,*,
Jingjing Su
1,4,*,
Mian Wang
1,
Sin-Yi (Rose) Lin
5,
Jonathan Bayuo
1,
Salihu Sabiu Musa
6,7 and
Alex Molassiotis
1,2
1
School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong 999077, China
2
Centre for Advancing Patient Health Outcomes, A JBI Affiliated Group, School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong 999077, China
3
Nursing and Health Sciences Department, University College of Applied Sciences (UCAS), Gaza P860, Palestine
4
WHO Collaborating Centre for Community Health Services (WHOCC), School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong 999077, China
5
School of Nursing, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China
6
Department of Applied Mathematics, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong 999077, China
7
Operational Research Center in Healthcare, Near East University TRNC, Mersin 10, Nicosia 99138, Turkey
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2022, 10(7), 1344; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071344
Submission received: 26 June 2022 / Revised: 15 July 2022 / Accepted: 17 July 2022 / Published: 20 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Management in Different Health Conditions)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Despite the increasing number of publications globally, the COVID-19 pandemic has underscored significant research gaps that should be resolved, including within PC-related research. This study aimed to map and understand the global trends in palliative care (PC)-related COVID-19 research and provide quantitative evidence to guide future studies. We systematically searched four databases between 1st January 2020 and 25th April 2022. The VOSviewer, Gephi, and R software were utilized for data analysis and results visualization. A total of 673 articles were identified from the databases between 1st January 2020 and 25th April 2022. Canada (6.2%), Australia (5.4%), and the United Kingdom (3.8%) were the most productive countries regarding articles published per million confirmed COVID-19 cases. A lack of international collaborations and an uneven research focus on PC across countries with different pandemic trajectories was observed. The PC research in question focused on cancer, telehealth, death and dying, and bereavement. This study’s conclusions support the recommendation for international collaboration to facilitate knowledge and practice transformation to support countries with unmet PC needs during the pandemic. Further studies are required on the grief and bereavement support of families, healthcare professionals and patients with other life-threatening illnesses.

1. Introduction

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a global public health concern [1]. It has negatively impacted social, economic, and healthcare systems globally [2]. The quantity and quality of health services provided to patients have been impacted considerably by the high incidence of infections [3]. Existing disparities in access to health services are predicted to surge as the gap widens between countries with and without adequate resources and funding allocations to overcome the effects of the pandemic on delivering care to patients with life-threatening illnesses [2,4].
Palliative care (PC) has played a pivotal role in the response to COVID-19 by providing symptom management and physical and psychological support to patients and families [5]. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced national and international PC institutions to produce guidance statements for PC specialists to confirm the safety and optimal care for people dying from COVID-19 [6,7]. This has stimulated researchers to conduct studies that have led to a plethora of health-related publications [8]. These publications cover a wide range of subject matter, such as COVID-19 transmission modes, the determinants of outcomes, and the PC support applicable to persons living with COVID-19 and their families. A quick search in the World Health Organization (WHO) portal, as of 20th April 2022, shows up to 466,114 COVID-19-related publications in just 27 months since the start of the pandemic [9]. Despite the increasing number of publications, the pandemic has underscored significant research gaps that should be resolved, including within PC-related research [4,10]. The first COVID-19 bibliometric mapping was conducted by Chahrour et al. [11], and it targeted only PubMed and WHO database publications between December 2019 and March 2020. A total of 564 articles were identified from 39 countries, and China ranked the highest among these in terms of the number of publications, with 67% of the total number of publications. While the recent bibliometric mapping review conducted by Abu-Odah et al. [10] focused on global PC between 2002 and 2020, this was not specific to COVID-19 and was restricted to the study of articles published in English. The study results showed that the USA and the UK were the two most productive countries in regard to PC-related publications. Despite the important findings of these two reviews, there no bibliometric study has shed light on the global developments in PC-related COVID-19 research. To address this gap, we conducted a bibliometric network analysis focusing on the PC-related COVID-19 research. It is argued that the quantitative findings of this study will deliver significant insight for future directions in the PC-related COVID-19 research.

2. Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

A systematic literature review with bibliometric analysis of PC-related COVID-19 research was performed from 1st January 2020 to 15th August 2021, and was updated on 25th April 2022, using metadata extracted from the Medline (EbscoHost), SCOPUS (Elsevier), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EbscoHost), and Web of Science (Thomson Reuter) databases. The rationale for using these databases is that they are the most commonly comprehensive databases that encompass the biomedical and social sciences literature [12].
We retrieved the literature from the aforementioned databases using the keywords adopted in previous review studies [10,13,14,15,16]. The “palliative care” term with its alternative search keywords (“palliative medicine” OR “hospice care” OR “terminal care” OR “end-of-life care” OR “end of life care” OR “palliat*” OR “life-limiting” OR “life-threatening” OR “incurable disease” OR “supportive care”) was searched. The COVID-19 term with its alternative search keywords (“novel coronavirus 2019” OR “2019-nCov” OR “2019 Novel Coronavirus” OR “coronavirus” OR “middle east respiratory syndrome” OR “coronavirus disease 2019” OR “coronavirus 2019” OR “COVID 2019” OR “COVID 19” OR “nCOV” OR “SARS” OR “MERS” OR “SARS-CoV-2” OR “COVID-19” OR “COVID*” was also searched. Both terms were combined with the Boolean operator “AND” to generate specific results related to PC-related COVID-19. We screened the title and abstract of each publication to identify relevant papers. We included all articles focusing on PC-related COVID-19 publications, regardless of language. The search process of the database is presented in Supplementary Table S1.

2.2. Inclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows:
  • Original articles only.
  • Articles stating the above-mentioned keywords in the title and abstract.
  • Published between 1 January 2020 and 25 April 2022.
  • Articles written in any language.
  • The exclusion criteria were as follows:
  • PC papers unrelated to the pandemic.
  • Reviews, editorial notes, conference abstracts, letters, discussion, and erratum.

2.3. Screening and Data Extraction

Two of the authors (H.A.O. and JJ.U.) independently screened the title and abstract of each paper from the above-mentioned databases. Those papers that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded after an agreement between the authors. A third author (J.B.) was responsible for making the final decision of any uncertainly that the first two authors encountered during the assessment of the papers. The eligible articles were then exported into the “Comma-Separated Values” file and this was subsequently used to delete duplicates. The flow diagram of included articles and the reasons for excluding articles are reported in Figure 1.

2.4. Data Cleaning and Adjustment

The CSV metadata file of each database was slightly inconsistent with those in the other databases; thus, we undertook several steps before analyzing the bibliometric metadata to avoid duplication and missing any data. First, all of the databases’ files were modified to adhere to the Scopus file in terms of column titles. After modification and the exclusion of unnecessary columns, the files were combined into a single CSV file. The duplicated articles were removed based on each paper’s digital object identifier. The final bibliometric data were adjusted and corrected, including countries’ names, institutions, journals, and references, and then were transferred to the software for analysis.

2.5. Data Analysis and Visualization

Descriptive statistical analyses, including frequencies and percentages, were applied to identify the dynamic trends in the publications in the PC-related COVID-19 field. Data analysis was conducted utilizing the software R, version 4.0.3. The “bibliometrix” package, an R-tool for science-mapping analysis, was used to analyze and visualize PC-related COVID-19 research outputs [17]. We also utilized VOSviewer (version 1.6.13) [18] and Gephi (version 0.0.2) [19] in mapping the findings. VOSviewer is a free software that allows researchers to construct and visualize maps/networks easily with a high quality and high resolution. It was mainly utilized for cluster mapping and visualizing the co-authorship analyses of keywords and patterns of cooperation between institutions and countries by determining their frequency and total link strength. Despite the importance of VOSviewer, it only displays the nodes in a bibliometric network and does not present the edges between nodes. It also cannot be used for advanced analysis, such as of centrality and betweenness centrality, which are commonly used criteria for the analysis of co-authorship. Gephi is another free software for the visualization and analysis of large network graphs. It offers extensive visualization capabilities, which make it possible to customize visualizations in more detail. It was utilized to run advanced analyses, such as of centrality and betweenness centrality to analyze co-authorship [20]. Gephi is less focused on network analysis than VOSviewer is.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the Retrieved Articles

The initial search in the Scopus and WOS databases yielded 1910 papers. After removing duplicates and unrelated articles, 673 articles remained for final analysis and visualization (Figure 1). Of note, 246 articles were published in 2020, 323 were published in 2021, and a further 104 articles were published until the last search in 25 April 2022. The retrieved articles were produced by 5204 authors, with an average of 7.73 authors per article. At the time of data extraction, articles were cited 4987 times, with an average of 7.83 citations per article (Table 1).

3.2. Most Common Journals

The 673 remaining articles were published in 357 scholarly journals. In total, the top 10 journals published 213 papers, accounting for 31.6% of the total number of publications, which received 640 citations (Table 2). The most frequently cited journal was the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (n = 60, 8.9%), followed by Palliative Medicine (n = 32, 4.6%), and the American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (n = 30, 4.5%). Half of the top 10 cited journals were from North America. Although the Indian Journal of Palliative Care ranked fifth in terms of the frequency of its publications, the h-index of this journal was relatively low (H_index = 3) compared to other journals that published fewer articles. The same applies for Soins journal, which published 11 papers but had fewer citations. Among the top 10 journals, only three journals had no impact factor (IF), while three journals had an IF of >3.5.

3.3. Country Collaborations

An analysis of geographic origin showed that the USA was the leading country with 183 (27.2%) articles, followed by the UK with 84 (12.5%) articles and India with 45 (6.7%) articles. The top 10 productive countries were stratified based on article numbers per million confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths (Table 3). The findings showed that Canada was ranked first, followed by Australia and the UK. These results also revealed that the highest average number of citations was 10.39 for articles from the USA, followed by France (7.92) and Italy (7.41). The lowest average number of citations was reported in India (1.71). Although India ranked at the top in terms of the frequency of publications, its overall citation performance was low.
The country co-authorship analysis in Figure 2 shows that the USA (from North America) stands out as the top-ranked country concerning cooperation in research with other countries, followed by the UK (from Europe) and Australia (in Australasia). India was the key research center in South Asia, Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, and Uganda in Africa. Despite this cooperation, the strength of relations with other countries was weak. Strong relations were observed only in the USA, the UK, Australia, Italy, Canada, France, and Germany.

3.4. Institutions

A total of 1891 institutions published relevant articles; 34 institutions met the criterion of having a minimum of two documents. The Gephi software was utilized to identify the top leading institutions by calculating the hyperlink-induced topic search values. The findings underscored the minimal cooperative relationships between institutions (Figure 3). A robust international collaboration was observed between Sweden and the USA, and between the UK and Switzerland. Cooperation was also noted between Italy and Uganda. No cooperation, however, was noted among many institutions.

3.5. Keywords Co-Occurrence Analysis

Out of 1129 keywords extracted from the databases, 39 keywords met the criterion to have a minimum number of four occurrences. The final network consisted of 39 nodes and 630 relations, with an average of 16.1 relations between keywords. The 39 keywords were distributed into seven clusters representing seven main research themes. The most frequent keywords were concentrated in the first three clusters.
The first cluster (red) included 10 keywords and focused on the topics of cancer, psychological distress, anxiety and depression, distress, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, prognosis, treatment, COVID-19, and telemedicine.
The second cluster (green) included seven keywords and concentrated on the topics of palliative care, hospitalization, nursing home, dementia, adult, education, and qualitative research.
The third cluster (blue) included seven keywords and focused on the topics of death and dying, terminal care, home care, communication, quality of life, public health, and ethics.
The network visualization of author keywords showed that cancer, telehealth, death and dying, hospitalization, bereavement, communication, advance care planning, nursing, qualitative research, ethics, and quality of life are the most common areas that have received research attention. The keywords in Figure 4 are illustrated in Table 4 with their occurrence frequency and total link of strength.

4. Discussion

This bibliometric network analysis has provided a map of the global PC-related COVID-19 research, showing a rapid increase in PC-related COVID-19 research led by countries with a high number of COVID-19 cases. The USA was the most productive country in this area in terms of the frequency of their publications, with four of their institutions ranking among the top 10 positions. Concurrently, the most cited papers emerged from the UK, with a clinical focus on managing patients with COVID-19 in PC [21,22]. The increased productivity of publications in the USA might be related to the increasing number of infections and deaths from COVID-19 [23] and the long history of PC [24,25,26]. By 3rd September 2021, over 219 million infections and 4.5 million deaths were reported worldwide [23]. Most of these deaths were among older adults and patients with underlying, life-threatening ailments [27]. According to the WHO pandemic-monitoring data, the added disease burden of COVID-19 requires the urgent enhancement of the operation and implementation of palliative care in settings with pandemic outbreaks and a lack of development in PC services [28,29].
International collaboration in PC-related COVID-19 research was observed to be low, which resonates with the study findings of Abu-Odah et al., where the authors noted that from 2002 to 2020, collaboration in global PC research was low [10]. Despite the low rates of cooperation, the USA is still leading in international efforts, as underscored by this study. This finding is in line with that of a previous study [30]. International cooperation is a fundamental method for sharing health knowledge, enhancing care, and increasing research capacity [31]. Low levels of collaboration across countries might be attributed to the small number of published articles in many of these countries. Another explanation might be the novelty of COVID-19, containment policies, and health care system incompatibilities, which have obligated each country to follow its research priorities and context-specific needs. The shared global concern of the COVID-19 pandemic provides an avenue for cross-country and cross-continental collaboration to strengthen solidarity.
Most previous reviews have revealed that PC research has focused on cancer-related issues [10,32,33], as cancer patients are one of the largest groups of patients with life-threatening illnesses. Although the included studies also concentrated more on the PC of the cancer patient population, their foci were more on different outcomes of interest, including pandemic-related mental crises and added symptom burden post-COVID-19, and the accessibility of PC services and alternatives for this cohort were emphasized. PC is not limited to a specific disease group; it is a multidimensional approach to end-of-life care [34]. Scholars have attributed the focus of PC-related COVID-19 research to cancer patients, as they are a vulnerable group at risk of COVID-19-related infection [35,36]. For instance, the mortality rate of lung cancer patients ranges between 25 and 55%, compared with 10% in other COVID-19 patients [37,38]. The high prevalence of deaths among patients has led to a plethora of research focusing on death, dying, and bereavement-related research. Despite the increasing attention in this regard, less attention has been paid to persons with other chronic ailments who contract COVID-19, such as dementia patients. Further studies are warranted among these vulnerable patients.
Grief is a key issue attributed to the pandemic that affects patients, families, and healthcare professionals [39]. The pandemic has created obstacles for the support of grievers [28]. This may explain why grief and bereavement-related topics have been frequently discussed in several studies. Most previous studies have shed light on professionals and pediatric bereavement, with little attention given to families. Further work that is related to the families’ grief and bereavement is required. Integrating bereavement care into health care should also be considered to overcome the negative consequences of COVID-19 for families and professionals.
Health technologies were adopted as substitutional methods to improve access to health services to adhere to pandemic containment measures undertaken by countries that had limited their in-person healthcare delivery [40]. Utilizing telehealth technologies is not new and has become widely adopted in healthcare settings. However, the usage of these technologies is relatively low [40]. Before the pandemic, there was evidence showing interest in utilizing telehealth services [41,42]. During the pandemic, health policies initiatives have been made to facilitate telehealth access and to promote delivering specialty care rapidly [43]. As shown by this study, telehealth services have been used as a method of communication between health facilities and patients. Such technologies have helped in the continuity of healthcare delivery to patients and have improved patient health outcomes [44]. Adopting telehealth services can also minimize the risk of infection between healthcare professionals and patients with life-threatening alignments. Thus, the expansion of telehealth technologies in the future is needed due to its benefits; however, implementing telehealth requires adequate preparation and technical expertise in the healthcare setting [45]. Thus, training PC professionals is required to help them to use telehealth remote platforms to deliver services to patients and families.
This review did not limit the search to only articles written in the English language; however, English-speaking countries still ranked at the top in terms of productivity and number of citations. Although China was ranked in the second-top position with an outstanding contribution to COVID-19 research [30], it seemed it had made minimal contribution to the PC-related COVID-19 research. Most publications from China have focused on the causes of the virus, diagnosis and treatment strategies, prevention and control, and the use of traditional Chinese medicine [46,47]. Low numbers of publications in China, as well as in Germany and Spain, might also be attributed to the different operation and implementation of PC in their healthcare systems.

Strengths and Limitations

Our bibliometric analysis of PC-related COVID-19 publications offers a global overview of the studies that have been conducted on this topic, which allows the identification of the research gaps for future research. The search conducted in this study was not restricted to articles written in English, making the findings more generalizable. Despite these strengths, some limitations are noteworthy. Firstly, the data were sourced from Scopus and WOS only, with no further manual searching. Furthermore, articles published in 2020 have received a high number of citations compared with the newly published articles which may not reflect the importance of the latter studies accurately. Finally, the duration of the search period was short, and the rate of publications on the topic of this pandemic and other citation parameters may need to be altered as we come to understand more about COVID-19 and patients and as health systems adjust to it and learn to cope more efficiently.

5. Conclusions

This bibliometric network analysis delivers an overview of PC-related COVID-19 studies, which often focus on cancer care and technology-based care delivery. International collaboration should be fostered to facilitate knowledge and transform practices to support countries with unmet PC needs during the pandemic. Further studies are required in grief and bereavement support for families and healthcare professionals as well as in patients with other life-threatening illnesses.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/healthcare10071344/s1, Table S1: Scopus search strategies for articles.

Author Contributions

H.A.-O. and J.S. designed the study and managed the literature searches and analyses. H.A.-O. undertook work relating to the VOSviewer, Gephi and R software. M.W., J.B. and S.-Y.L. contributed to the discussion. Manuscript revision was conducted by A.M., H.A.-O., J.S. and S.S.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study does not involve human participants.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data used in this study are available on reasonable request from the first and corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cucinotta, D.; Vanelli, M. WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic. Acta Biomed. 2020, 91, 157–160. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abu-Odah, H.; Ramazanu, S.; Saleh, E.; Bayuo, J.; Abed, Y.; Salah, M.S. COVID-19 Pandemic in Hong Kong and Gaza Strip: Lessons Learned from Two Densely Populated Locations in the World. Osong Public Health Res. Perspect. 2021, 12, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. World Health Organisation COVID-19 Significantly Impacts Health Services for Noncommunicable Diseases. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/01-06-2020-covid-19-significantly-impacts-health-services-for-noncommunicable-diseases (accessed on 2 September 2021).
  4. Yusuf, A.; Sarfati, D.; Booth, C.M.; Pramesh, C.S.; Lombe, D.; Aggarwal, A.; Bhoo-Pathy, N.; Tsunoda, A.; Vanderpuye, V.; Kutluk, T.; et al. Cancer and COVID-19 vaccines: A complex global picture. Lancet Oncol. 2021, 22, 749–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mendis, R.; Haines, A.; Williams, L.; Mitchener, K.; Grimaldi, F.; Phillips, M.; Shaw, M.; Nguyen, T.P.H.; Dabscheck, A.; Spruijt, O. Palliative care and COVID-19 in the Australian context: A review of patients with COVID-19 referred to palliative care. Aust. Health Rev. 2021, 45, 667–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Gilissen, J.; Pivodic, L.; Unroe, K.T.; Van den Block, L. International COVID-19 palliative care guidance for nursing homes leaves key themes unaddressed. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2020, 60, e56–e69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bear, L.; Simpson, N.; Angland, M.; Bhogal, J.K.; Bowers, R.; Cannell, F.; Gardner, K.; Lohiya, A.; James, D.; Jivraj, N. ‘A Good Death’during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the UK: A Report on Key Findings and Recommendations; London School of Economics and Political Science: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cai, X.; Fry, C.V.; Wagner, C.S. International collaboration during the COVID-19 crisis: Autumn 2020 developments. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 3683–3692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. World Health Organisation COVID-19-Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease. Available online: https://search.bvsalud.org/global-literature-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/ (accessed on 20 April 2022).
  10. Abu-Odah, H.; Molassiotis, A.; Liu, J.Y.W. Global palliative care research (2002–2020): Bibliometric review and mapping analysis. BMJ Support. Palliat. Care 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chahrour, M.; Assi, S.; Bejjani, M.; Nasrallah, A.A.; Salhab, H.; Fares, M.; Khachfe, H.H. A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 research activity: A call for increased output. Cureus 2020, 12, e7357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Martín-Martín, A.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Thelwall, M.; López-Cózar, E.D. Google scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. J. Informetr. 2018, 12, 1160–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Furstenau, L.B.; Rabaioli, B.; Sott, M.K.; Cossul, D.; Bender, M.S.; Farina, E.M.; Filho, F.N.; Severo, P.P.; Dohan, M.S.; Bragazzi, N.L. A bibliometric network analysis of coronavirus during the first eight months of COVID-19 in 2020. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Abu-Odah, H.; Molassiotis, A.; Liu, J. Challenges on the provision of palliative care for patients with cancer in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review of reviews. BMC Palliat. Care 2020, 19, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Rietjens, J.A.; Bramer, W.M.; Geijteman, E.C.; van der Heide, A.; Oldenmenger, W.H. Development and validation of search filters to find articles on palliative care in bibliographic databases. Palliat. Med. 2019, 33, 470–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Qiu, X.; Nergiz, A.I.; Maraolo, A.E.; Bogoch, I.I.; Low, N.; Cevik, M. The role of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic infection in SARS-CoV-2 transmission-a living systematic review. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2021, 27, 511–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Gephi Gephi Tutorial Quick Start. Available online: https://gephi.org/tutorials/gephi-tutorial-quick_start.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2020).
  20. Gómez, S. Centrality in networks: Finding the most important nodes. In Business and Consumer Analytics: New Ideas; Moscato, P., de Vries, N.J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 401–433. [Google Scholar]
  21. Alderman, B.; Webber, K.; Davies, A. An audit of end-of-life symptom control in patients with corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) dying in a hospital in the United Kingdom. Palliat. Med. 2020, 34, 1249–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pearce, C.; Honey, J.R.; Lovick, R.; Zapiain Creamer, N.; Henry, C.; Langford, A.; Stobert, M.; Barclay, S. ‘A silent epidemic of grief’: A survey of bereavement care provision in the UK and Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e046872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center. Available online: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html (accessed on 3 September 2021).
  24. Morrison, R.S. Models of palliative care delivery in the United States. Curr. Opin. Support. Palliat. Care 2013, 7, 201–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Connor, S.R. Development of hospice and palliative care in the United States. Omega 2007, 56, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Abu-Odah, H.; Molassiotis, A.; Liu, J. Lessons Learned from Countries That Have Introduced Palliative Care Services into Their National Health System: A Narrative Review. J. Palliat. Care 2022, 37, 55–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, D.; Hu, B.; Hu, C.; Zhu, F.; Liu, X.; Zhang, J.; Wang, B.; Xiang, H.; Cheng, Z.; Xiong, Y.; et al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus–infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA 2020, 323, 1061–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Fadul, N.; Elsayem, A.F.; Bruera, E. Integration of palliative care into COVID-19 pandemic planning. BMJ Support. Palliat. Care 2021, 11, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Powell, R.A.; Rodriquez-Campos, L.; Opare-Lokko, E.B.; Ebenso, B.E.; Allsop, M.J. ‘Flattening’ one curve: What about ‘raising the line’ on the other? COVID-19 and palliative care in low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ Support. Palliat. Care 2021, 11, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Grammes, N.; Millenaar, D.; Fehlmann, T.; Kern, F.; Böhm, M.; Mahfoud, F.; Keller, A. Research output and international cooperation among countries during the COVID-19 pandemic: Scientometric analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e24514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Meslin, E.M.; Garba, I. International collaboration for global public health. In Public Health Ethics: Cases Spanning the Globe; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 241–284. [Google Scholar]
  32. Moral-Munoz, J.A.; Carballo-Costa, L.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Cobo, M.J. Production trends, collaboration, and main topics of the integrative and complementary oncology research area: A bibliometric analysis. Integr. Cancer Ther. 2019, 18, 1534735419846401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Bouça-Machado, R.; Rosário, M.; Alarcão, J.; Correia-Guedes, L.; Abreu, D.; Ferreira, J.J. Clinical trials in palliative care: A systematic review of their methodological characteristics and of the quality of their reporting. BMC Palliat. Care 2017, 16, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. World Health Organization. In WHO Definition of Palliative Care; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022.
  35. Zhang, L.; Zhu, F.; Xie, L.; Wang, C.; Wang, J.; Chen, R.; Jia, P.; Guan, H.Q.; Peng, L.; Chen, Y.; et al. Clinical characteristics of COVID-19-infected cancer patients: A retrospective case study in three hospitals within Wuhan, China. Ann. Oncol. Off. J. Eur. Soc. Med. Oncol. 2020, 31, 894–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Guan, W.J.; Ni, Z.Y.; Hu, Y.; Liang, W.H.; Ou, C.Q.; He, J.X.; Liu, L.; Shan, H.; Lei, C.L.; Hui, D.S.C.; et al. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1708–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mehta, V.; Goel, S.; Kabarriti, R.; Cole, D.; Goldfinger, M.; Acuna-Villaorduna, A.; Pradhan, K.; Thota, R.; Reissman, S.; Sparano, J.A.; et al. Case fatality rate of cancer patients with COVID-19 in a New York hospital system. Cancer Discov. 2020, 10, 935–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Garassino, M.C.; Whisenant, J.G.; Huang, L.C.; Trama, A.; Torri, V.; Agustoni, F.; Baena, J.; Banna, G.; Berardi, R.; Bettini, A.C.; et al. COVID-19 in patients with thoracic malignancies (TERAVOLT): First results of an international, registry-based, cohort study. Lancet. Oncol. 2020, 21, 914–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wallace, C.L.; Wladkowski, S.P.; Gibson, A.; White, P. Grief during the COVID-19 pandemic: Considerations for palliative care providers. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2020, 60, e70–e76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Harvey, J.B.; Valenta, S.; Simpson, K.; Lyles, M.; McElligott, J. Utilization of outpatient telehealth services in parity and nonparity states 2010–2015. Telemed. J. E-Health 2019, 25, 132–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Orlando, J.F.; Beard, M.; Kumar, S. Systematic review of patient and caregivers’ satisfaction with telehealth videoconferencing as a mode of service delivery in managing patients’ health. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0221848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Martinez, K.A.; Rood, M.; Jhangiani, N.; Kou, L.; Rose, S.; Boissy, A.; Rothberg, M.B. Patterns of use and correlates of patient satisfaction with a large nationwide direct to consumer telemedicine service. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2018, 33, 1768–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Bashshur, R.; Doarn, C.R.; Frenk, J.M.; Kvedar, J.C.; Woolliscroft, J.O. Telemedicine and the COVID-19 pandemic, lessons for the future. Telemed. J. E-Health 2020, 26, 571–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. O’Connor, M.; Asdornwised, U.; Dempsey, M.L.; Huffenberger, A.; Jost, S.; Flynn, D.; Norris, A. Using telehealth to reduce all-cause 30-day hospital readmissions among heart failure patients receiving skilled home health services. Appl. Clin. Inf. 2016, 7, 238–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Funderskov, K.F.; Boe Danbjørg, D.; Jess, M.; Munk, L.; Olsen Zwisler, A.D.; Dieperink, K.B. Telemedicine in specialised palliative care: Healthcare professionals’ and their perspectives on video consultations-A qualitative study. J. Clin. Nurs. 2019, 28, 3966–3976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fan, J.; Gao, Y.; Zhao, N.; Dai, R.; Zhang, H.; Feng, X.; Shi, G.; Tian, J.; Chen, C.; Hambly, B.D.; et al. Bibliometric analysis on COVID-19: A comparison of research between English and Chinese Studies. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gong, Y.; Ma, T.C.; Xu, Y.Y.; Yang, R.; Gao, L.J.; Wu, S.H.; Li, J.; Yue, M.L.; Liang, H.G.; He, X.; et al. Early research on COVID-19: A bibliometric analysis. Innovation 2020, 1, 100027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Healthcare 10 01344 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the included articles.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the included articles.
Healthcare 10 01344 g001
Healthcare 10 01344 g002 550
Figure 2. Network visualization map of cooperation between countries using “R”. Darker blue colors represent the most commonly collaborative countries regarding this topic, in terms of the frequency of their publications.
Figure 2. Network visualization map of cooperation between countries using “R”. Darker blue colors represent the most commonly collaborative countries regarding this topic, in terms of the frequency of their publications.
Healthcare 10 01344 g002
Healthcare 10 01344 g003 550
Figure 3. Network visualization map of cooperation across institutions created using Gephi. Nodes in the resultant network were recolored based on hyperlink-induced topic search value. Nodes with red color represent higher values that reflect highly influential institutions, followed by nodes with green and yellow. The thickness line between nodes also presents a strong relationship between institutions.
Figure 3. Network visualization map of cooperation across institutions created using Gephi. Nodes in the resultant network were recolored based on hyperlink-induced topic search value. Nodes with red color represent higher values that reflect highly influential institutions, followed by nodes with green and yellow. The thickness line between nodes also presents a strong relationship between institutions.
Healthcare 10 01344 g003
Healthcare 10 01344 g004 550
Figure 4. Network visualization map of most frequent author keywords created using VOSviewer. The colors in the map show seven clusters representing seven research themes. Nodes with similar colours represent a cluster of related terms. The figure was created using VOSviewer.
Figure 4. Network visualization map of most frequent author keywords created using VOSviewer. The colors in the map show seven clusters representing seven research themes. Nodes with similar colours represent a cluster of related terms. The figure was created using VOSviewer.
Healthcare 10 01344 g004
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of included articles (N = 673).
Table 1. Characteristics of included articles (N = 673).
CharacteristicsResults
Main information about data
Sources (journals)357
Average citations per documents7.828
Average citations per year per2.90
Number of references in included articles4927
Document contents
Keywords plus 2985
Author’s keywords in the paper1129
Authors
Total authors in included papers5204
Authors in multi-authored documents5171
Authors collaboration
Single-authored documents39
Documents per author0.129
Authors per document7.73
Co-authors per documents10.4
Table
Table 2. Top 10 journals in the field of PC-related COVID-19 research.
Table 2. Top 10 journals in the field of PC-related COVID-19 research.
RankJournals
(JIF, Quartile (2020)) †		Articles
n (%)		Total Citations H_IndexGeographic Region of Journal
1stJournal of Pain & Symptom Management
(JIF = 3.61, Q2)		60 (8.9%)36010North America
2ndPalliative Medicine
(JIF = 4.76, Q1)		32 (4.6%)826Europe
3rdAmerican Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine
(JIF = 2.50, Q3)		30 (4.5%)393North America
4thJournal of Palliative Medicine
(JIF = 2.94, Q2)		22 (3.3%)412North America
5thIndian Journal of Palliative Care
(JIF = NA, Q4)		21 (3.1%)333India
6thJournal of Hospice & Palliative Nursing
(JIF = 1.91, Q3)		14 (2.1%)242North America
7thBMJ Supportive & Palliative Care
(JIF = 3.56, Q2)		11 (1.6%)302Europe
8thSoins
(JIF = NA, Q4)		11 (2.5%)50France
9thPalliative & Supportive Care
(JIF = 2.25, Q3)		6 (1.5%)122Europe
10thBMJ Open
(JIF = 2.69, Q2)		6 (1.5%)143Europe
JIF = journal impact factor; NA = not available. † Journal impact factor based on Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge JCR Ranking (2020).
Table
Table 3. Top 10 productive countries on PC-related COVID-19 publications.
Table 3. Top 10 productive countries on PC-related COVID-19 publications.
RankCountryArticles Numbers †No. of CitationsCitation AveragePercentage of Articles Published by the CountryCOVID Cases (in Millions) ‡ Articles/Million COVID CasesCOVID Deaths (in 1000) ‡ Articles/1000 COVID Deaths
1stUSA183190210.3927.2%82.72.21.0190.0001
2ndUnited Kingdom846207.3812.5%21.93.8174.10.48
3rdIndia45771.716.7%43.11.1522.30.86
4thItaly392897.415.8%16.22.4162.90.24
5thGermany351504.285.2%24.31.4135.120.26
6thAustralia311314.224.6%5.75.47.14.36
7thFrance262067.923.9%28.40.91145.40.18
8thSpain261294.963.9%11.82.2104.20.25
9thCanada231295.613.4%3.76.238.90.59
10thBrazil20442.23.0%30.30.6662.90.03
† The number of articles was counted based on the corresponding author’s country. ‡ World population estimate. Accessed on 27 April 2022 from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/.
Table
Table 4. Most frequently used study keywords in PC-related COVID-19 research.
Table 4. Most frequently used study keywords in PC-related COVID-19 research.
RankKeywordsOccurrencesTotal Link StrengthRankKeywordsOccurrencesTotal Link Strength
1stCOVID-1929138121stCritical care57
2ndPalliative care19331122ndElderly511
3rdCancer234923rdHome care510
4thTelehealth183424thPrimary care59
5thDeath and dying163525thPrognosis59
6thHospitalization122526thSocial work513
7thBereavement112927thSymptom management511
8thCommunication112628thTerminal care514
9thAdvance care planning102029thTreatment512
10thNursing101930thAdult46
11thQualitative research101831stChallenges410
12thEthics91632ndDementia410
13thQuality of life92233rdEducation46
14thGrief71734thGeriatrics47
15thPediatric71035thGoals of care410
16thNursing homes61536thPreparedness47
17thPalliative medicine61337thPsychological distress47
18thPublic health61338thRadiotherapy49
19thAnxiety and depression5939thTriage48
20thChemotherapy511
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abu-Odah, H.; Su, J.; Wang, M.; Lin, S.-Y.; Bayuo, J.; Musa, S.S.; Molassiotis, A. Palliative Care Landscape in the COVID-19 Era: Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1344. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071344

AMA Style

Abu-Odah H, Su J, Wang M, Lin S-Y, Bayuo J, Musa SS, Molassiotis A. Palliative Care Landscape in the COVID-19 Era: Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research. Healthcare. 2022; 10(7):1344. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071344

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abu-Odah, Hammoda, Jingjing Su, Mian Wang, Sin-Yi (Rose) Lin, Jonathan Bayuo, Salihu Sabiu Musa, and Alex Molassiotis. 2022. "Palliative Care Landscape in the COVID-19 Era: Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research" Healthcare 10, no. 7: 1344. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071344

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop