Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28637450›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2017

Health care use and costs at the end of life: a comparison of elderly Australian decedents with and without a cancer history.

Rebecca Reeve, Preeyaporn Srasuebkul, Julia M Langton, Marion Haas, Rosalie Viney, Sallie-Anne Pearson, EOL-CC study authors

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 107 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis ofClinical & experimental metastasis · 2020
    Trial
  4. Population Preferences for Treatment in Life-Limiting Illness: Valuing the Way Time Is Spent at the End of Life.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Article
  5. The correlation between anger/agitation and other factors including spousal care in home-dwelling older adults with advanced cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Primary care usage at the end of life: a retrospective cohort study of cancer patients using linked primary and hospital care data.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Rebecca ReeveCentre for Health Economics Research & Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123 Broadway, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Preeyaporn SrasuebkulFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Julia M LangtonFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Marion HaasCentre for Health Economics Research & Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123 Broadway, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia. marion.haas@chere.uts.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9726-3063
Rosalie VineyCentre for Health Economics Research & Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123 Broadway, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Sallie-Anne PearsonFaculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
EOL-CC study authors
University of Technology Sydney · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is limited population-level research on end-of-life care in Australia that considers health care use and costs across hospital and community sectors. The aim of this study was to quantify health care use and costs in the last 6 months of life in a cohort of elderly Australian decedents and to examine the factors associated with end-of-life resource use and costs.

methodsA retrospective cohort study using routinely collected health data from Australian Government Department of Veterans' Affairs clients. The study included two cohorts of elderly Australians who died between 2005 and 2009; one cohort with a recorded cancer diagnosis and a comparison cohort with no evidence of a cancer history. We examined hospitalisations, emergency department (ED) visits, prescription drugs, clinician visits, pathology, and procedures and associated costs in the last 6 months of life. We used negative binominal regression to explore factors associated with health service use and costs.

resultsThe cancer cohort had significantly higher rates of health service use and 27% higher total health care costs than the comparison cohort; in both cohorts, costs were driven primarily by hospitalisations. Older age was associated with lower costs and those who died in residential aged care incurred half the costs of those who died in hospital.

conclusionsThe results suggest differences in end-of-life care pathways dependent on patient factors, with younger, community-dwelling patients and those with a history of cancer incurring significantly greater costs. There is a need to examine whether the investment in end-of-life care meets patient and societal needs.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaCohort StudiesCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMaleNeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesTerminal CareEnd-of-life careHealth care costsHealth care utilisationNeoplasmTerminal careVeterans health

Identifiers

PMID28637450
PMCPMC5480123
OpenAlexW2683922555

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.