Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29169346›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2017

Social and clinical determinants of preferences and their achievement at the end of life: prospective cohort study of older adults receiving palliative care in three countries.

Irene J Higginson, Barbara A Daveson, R Sean Morrison, Deokhee Yi, Diane Meier, Melinda Smith, Karen Ryan, Regina McQuillan, Bridget M Johnston, Charles Normand and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07184216 (Effect of a Person-Centred Care Intervention for Families Providing Home-Based Care to a Person With Advanced Chronic Illness), which is not on this map. Cited by 80 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
10.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT07184216 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Effect of a Person-Centred Care Intervention for Families Providing Home-Based Care to a Person With Advanced Chronic Illness: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorClinica Universidad de Navarra, Universidad de NavarraRan2025 to 2026Enrolled50ConditionsChronic Illness, CaregiversArmsPerson-centered care intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

80 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 180 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. What Is a Good Death in South Asia? A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Irene J HigginsonCicely Saunders Institute Of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, King's College London, and King's College Hospital, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK. irene.higginson@kcl.ac.uk.
Barbara A DavesonCicely Saunders Institute Of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, King's College London, and King's College Hospital, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK.
R Sean MorrisonDepartment of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY, 10029-6574, USA.
Deokhee YiCicely Saunders Institute Of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, King's College London, and King's College Hospital, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK. deok_hee.yi@kcl.ac.uk.
Diane MeierDepartment of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY, 10029-6574, USA.
Melinda SmithCicely Saunders Institute Of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, King's College London, and King's College Hospital, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK.
Karen RyanMater Misericordiae Hospital, Eccles Street, Dublin 7, Ireland.
Regina McQuillanBeaumont Hospital, Beaumont Road, Dublin 9, Ireland.
Bridget M JohnstonThe Centre of Health Policy and Management, Trinity College Dublin, Room 0.21, 3-4 Foster Place, College Green, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Charles NormandThe Centre of Health Policy and Management, Trinity College Dublin, Room 0.21, 3-4 Foster Place, College Green, Dublin 2, Ireland.
BuildCARE
King's College London · GBTrinity College Dublin · IEBeaumont Hospital · IECicely Saunders International · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAchieving choice is proposed as a quality marker. But little is known about what influences preferences especially among older adults. We aimed to determine and compare, across three countries, factors associated with preferences for place of death and treatment, and actual site of death.

methodsWe recruited adults aged ≥65-years from hospital-based multiprofessional palliative care services in London, Dublin, New York, and followed them for >17 months. All services offered consultation on hospital wards, support for existing clinical teams, outpatient services and received funding from their National Health Service and/or relevant Insurance reimbursements. The New York service additionally had 10 inpatient beds. All worked with and referred patients to local hospices. Face-to-face interviews recorded most and least preferred place of death, treatment goal priorities, demographic and clinical information using validated questionnaires. Multivariable and multilevel analyses assessed associated factors.

resultsOne hundred and thirty eight older adults (64 London, 59 Dublin, 15 New York) were recruited, 110 died during follow-up. Home was the most preferred place of death (77/138, 56%) followed by inpatient palliative care/hospice units (22%). Hospital was least preferred (35/138, 25%), followed by nursing home (20%) and home (16%); hospice/palliative care unit was rarely least preferred (4%). Most respondents prioritised improving quality of life, either alone (54%), or equal with life extension (39%); few (3%) chose only life extension. There were no significant differences between countries. Main associates with home preference were: cancer diagnosis (OR 3.72, 95% CI 1.40-9.90) and living with someone (OR 2.19, 1.33-3.62). Adults with non-cancer diagnoses were more likely to prefer palliative care units (OR 2.39, 1.14-5.03). Conversely, functional independence (OR 1.05, 1.04-1.06) and valuing quality of life (OR 3.11, 2.89-3.36) were associated with dying at home. There was a mismatch between preferences and achievements - of 85 people who preferred home or a palliative care unit, 19 (25%) achieved their first preference.

conclusionAlthough home is the most common first preference, it is polarising and for 16% it is the least preferred. Inpatient palliative care unit emerges as the second most preferred place, is rarely least preferred, and yet was often not achieved for those who wanted to die there. Factors affecting stated preferences and met preferences differ. Available services, notably community support and palliative care units, require expansion. Contrasting actual place of death with capacity for meeting patient and family needs may be a better quality indicator than simply 'achieved preferences'.

Indexed as

Attitude to DeathChoice BehaviorPatient PreferenceQuality of LifeTerminal CareAgedAged, 80 and overAgingFemaleHome Care ServicesHospicesHumansIrelandLondonMaleNursing HomesAgeingElderlyEnd-of-life careHomeHospiceHospitalPalliative carePlace of deathPreferences

Identifiers

PMID29169346
PMCPMC5701500
OpenAlexW2768739551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.