ArticleBMC research notes2015
Factors related to the provision of home-based end-of-life care among home-care nursing, home help, and care management agencies in Japan.
Article in BMC research notes, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Homecare workers needs and experiences in end of life care: rapid review.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2024Review
- Article
- Training opportunities and the increase in the number of nurses in home-visit nursing agencies in Japan: a panel data analysis.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Visiting Nurses' Perspectives on Practices to Achieve End-of-Life Cancer Patients' Wishes for Death at Home: A Qualitative Study.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo promote home death, it is necessary to clarify the institutional barriers to conducting end-of-life (EOL) care and consider strategies to deal with this process. This study aims to clarify institution-related factors associated with the provision of home-based EOL care cases, and to compare them among three different types of home-care agencies.
methodsWe administered a cross-sectional survey throughout Japan to investigate the number and characteristics of EOL cases of home-care nursing (HN), home-help (HH) and care management (CM) agencies. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed for each type of agency to examine factors related to the provision of EOL care.
results378 HN agencies, 274 HH agencies, and 452 CM agencies responded to the distributed questionnaire. HN agencies had on average 2.1 (SD = 4.0; range 0-60) home-based EOL cases in the last 3 months, while HH agencies had 0.9 (SD = 1.3; range 0-7) and CM agencies had 1.5 (SD = 2.2; range 0-18) in the last 6 months. In a multivariable analysis of HN agencies, a large number of staff (OR: 1.52; p < 0.001) and a large number of collaborating CM agencies (OR: 1.08; p = 0.008) were positively associated with the provision of EOL care; in HH agencies, accepting EOL clients in the agency (OR: 3.29; p < 0.001) was positively associated with the provision of EOL care; in CM agencies, the number of staff (OR: 1.21; p = 0.037), the number of collaborating HH agencies (OR: 1.07; p = 0.032), and whether home-care nurses and home helpers visit clients together (OR: 1.89; p = 0.007) were positively associated with the provision of EOL care.
conclusionThe agency's size and the inter-agency collaborative system seemed most important among HN agencies and CM agencies, while institutional preparedness for EOL was most important for HH agencies. These findings represent important new information for targeting different effective strategies in the promotion of home-based EOL care, depending on the agency type.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.