Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25927972›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2014

Choosing care homes as the least preferred place to die: a cross-national survey of public preferences in seven European countries.

Natalia Calanzani, Katrien Moens, Joachim Cohen, Irene J Higginson, Richard Harding, Luc Deliens, Franco Toscani, Pedro L Ferreira, Claudia Bausewein, Barbara A Daveson and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The quality of care of the dying in hospital-next-of-kin perspectives.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Natalia CalanzaniDepartment of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, SE5 9PJ, UK. natalia.calanzani@ed.ac.uk.
Katrien MoensDepartment of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, SE5 9PJ, UK. katrien.moens@kcl.ac.uk.
Joachim CohenEnd-of-Life Care Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) & Ghent University, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090, Brussels, Belgium. Joachim.Cohen@vub.ac.be.
Irene J HigginsonDepartment of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, SE5 9PJ, UK. irene.higginson@kcl.ac.uk.
Richard HardingDepartment of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, SE5 9PJ, UK. richard.harding@kcl.ac.uk.
Luc DeliensEnd-of-Life Care Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) & Ghent University, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090, Brussels, Belgium. l.deliens@vumc.nl.
Franco ToscaniFondazione Lino Maestroni - ONLUS, Istituto di Ricerca in Medicina Palliativa, Via Palestro, 1, 26100, Cremona, Italy. f.toscani@alice.it.
Pedro L FerreiraCentre for Health Studies and Research (CEISUC), Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, Av Dias da Silva 165, 3004-512, Coimbra, Portugal. pedrof@fe.uc.pt.
Claudia BauseweinDepartment of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, SE5 9PJ, UK. Claudia.Bausewein@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Barbara A DavesonDepartment of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, SE5 9PJ, UK. barbara.daveson@kcl.ac.uk.
Marjolein GyselsCentre for Social Science and Global Health, University of Amsterdam, O.Z. Achterburgwal 185, 1012, DK, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. mhgysels@gmail.com.
Lucas CeulemansUniversity Antwerp Belgium, Campus Drie Eiken, D.R.307, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610, Wilrijk, Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. lucas.ceulemans@ua.ac.be.
Barbara GomesDepartment of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, SE5 9PJ, UK. barbara.gomes@kcl.ac.uk.
Project PRISMA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCare homes are increasingly becoming places where people spend the final stages of their lives and eventually die. This trend is expected to continue due to population ageing, yet little is known about public preferences regarding this setting. As part of a larger study examining preferences and priorities for end of life care, we investigated the extent to which care homes are chosen as the least preferred place of death, and the factors associated with this negative preference.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional telephone survey among 9,344 adults from random private households in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. We asked participants where they would least prefer to die in a situation of serious illness with less than one year to live. Multivariate binary logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with choosing care homes as the least preferred place of death in each country.

resultsCare homes were the most frequently mentioned least preferred place of death in the Netherlands (41.5%), Italy and Spain (both 36.7%) and the second most frequent in England (28.0%), Portugal (25.8%), Germany (23.7%) and Flanders (18.9%). Only two factors had a similar and significant effect on the least preferred place of death in more than one country. In Germany and the Netherlands those doing housework were less likely to choose care homes as their least preferred place (AOR 0.72; 95% CI:0.54-0.96 and AOR 0.68; 95% CI:0.52-0.90 respectively), while those born in the country where the survey took place were more likely to choose care homes (AOR 1.77; 95% CI:1.05-2.99 and AOR 1.74; 95% CI:1.03-2.95 respectively). Experiences of serious illness, death and dying were not associated with the preference.

conclusionsOur results suggest it might be difficult to promote care homes as a good place to die. This is an urgent research area in order to meet needs and preferences of a growing number of older people with chronic, debilitating conditions across Europe. From a research perspective and in order to allow people to be cared for and die where they wish, our findings highlight the need to build more in depth evidence on reasons underlying this negative preference.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAttitude to DeathCross-Cultural ComparisonCross-Sectional StudiesEuropeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNursing HomesPalliative CarePatient PreferenceSurveys and QuestionnairesTerminal Care

Identifiers

PMID25927972
PMCPMC4430987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.