Study	Reason for exclusion
Brännström 2014	Intervention was not an alternative to inpatient hospital or hospice care.
Brumley 2003	Non‐randomised study (described as a "non‐equivalent comparison group") and compared a palliative‐care programme with home care.
Enguidanos 2005	Non‐equivalent study design.
Enguidanos 2019	Trial terminated due to inability to recruit participants.
Holdsworth 2015	Intervention not an alternative to inpatient hospital or hospice care.
Hughes 1990	Intervention did not provide end‐of‐life home‐based care.
Hughes 2000	Intervention not an alternative to inpatient hospital or hospice care.
Markgren 2019	Comparison group received usual care (primary healthcare centres and hospital outpatient clinics).
McCaffrey 2013	Comparison group received usual care (community services, including specialist palliative care and after‐hours care).
McCusker 1987	Non‐randomised study using routinely collected data.
McWhinney 1994	No outcome data reported; authors described the challenges of conducting a trial in this area.
NCT01885637	Intervention not an alternative to inpatient hospital or hospice care, but instead transition from oncology treatment to a psychological support at home.
Ng 2018	Comparison group received usual care (outpatient palliative care appointment, the option of a home visit and 2 social calls).
NTR2817	Comparison group received usual care (primary healthcare centres and hospital outpatient clinics).
Scheerens 2020	Comparison group received primary healthcare.
Stern 2006	Abstract only, no outcome data reported. Full article not identified.
Zimmerman 2014	Intervention not an alternative to inpatient hospital or hospice care, but instead early palliative care for people with advanced cancer.