Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31639495›Full record

ArticleJournal of pain and symptom management2020

Conceptualizing and Counting Discretionary Utilization in the Final 100 Days of Life: A Scoping Review.

Paul R Duberstein, Michael Chen, Michael Hoerger, Ronald M Epstein, Laura M Perry, Sule Yilmaz, Fahad Saeed, Supriya G Mohile, Sally A Norton

Open access · bronzeAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pain and symptom management, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Obliged to fight? Patient moral processes in the face of poor prognosis cancer.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Priming the Palliative Psychology Pipeline: Development and Evaluation of an Undergraduate Clinical Research Training Program.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Paul R DubersteinDepartment of Health Behavior, Society and Policy, Rutgers University School of Public Health, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA. Electronic address: paul.duberstein@rutgers.edu.
Michael ChenDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, USA.
Michael HoergerDepartments of Psychology, Psychiatry, and Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA; Tulane Cancer Center, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Ronald M EpsteinJames P. Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, USA; Department of Family Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, USA.
Laura M PerryDepartments of Psychology, Psychiatry, and Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Sule YilmazMargaret Warner School of Human Development, Rochester, New York, USA.
Fahad SaeedDepartment of Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, USA.
Supriya G MohileJames P. Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, USA.
Sally A NortonDepartment of Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, USA; School of Nursing, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA.
University of Rochester · USTulane University · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USTime Warner (United States) · US

Funding

URCC NCORP Research BaseUG1CA189961 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI Michelle C Janelsins, KAREN M. MUSTIAN · 2014 to 2026
$67.7M
RCT of Patient, Caregiver and Physician Communication Coaching in Advanced CancerR01CA140419 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI EPSTEIN, RONALD M., KRAVITZ, RICHARD L · 2011 to 2015
$2.7M
Impact of a Novel Cancer Communication Intervention on Caregiver BereavementR01CA168387 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI DUBERSTEIN, PAUL R, PRIGERSON, HOLLY GWEN · 2013 to 2017
$2.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA140419NCI NIH HHS R01 CA168387NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189961
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextThere has been surprisingly little attention to conceptual and methodological issues that influence the measurement of discretionary utilization at the end of life (DIAL), an indicator of quality care.

objectiveThe objectives of this study were to examine how DIALs have been operationally defined and identify areas where evidence is biased or inadequate to inform practice.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review of the English language literature published from 1/1/04 to 6/30/17. Articles were eligible if they reported data on ≥2 DIALs within 100 days of the deaths of adults aged ≥18 years. We explored the influence of research design on how researchers measure DIALs and whether they examine demographic correlates of DIALs. Other potential biases and influences were explored.

resultsWe extracted data from 254 articles published in 79 journals covering research conducted in 29 countries, mostly focused on cancer care (69.1%). More than 100 DIALs have been examined. Relatively crude, simple variables (e.g., intensive care unit admissions [56.9% of studies], chemotherapy [50.8%], palliative care [40.0%]) have been studied more frequently than complex variables (e.g., burdensome transitions; 7.3%). We found considerable variation in the assessment of DIALs, illustrating the role of research design, professional norms and disciplinary habit. Variables are typically chosen with little input from the public (including patients or caregivers) and clinicians. Fewer than half of the studies examined age (44.6%), gender (37.3%), race (26.5%), or socioeconomic (18.5%) correlates of DIALs.

conclusionUnwarranted variation in DIAL assessments raises difficult questions concerning how DIALs are defined, by whom, and why. We recommend several strategies for improving DIAL assessments. Improved metrics could be used by the public, patients, caregivers, clinicians, researchers, hospitals, health systems, payers, governments, and others to evaluate and improve end-of-life care.

Indexed as

Hospice CareTerminal CareAdolescentAdultHospitalizationHumansIntensive Care UnitsPalliative CareAggressive careagingbiomedical ethicsdyingend-of-life carehealth care qualityhospiceICUlife-prolongingpalliative care

Identifiers

PMID31639495
PMCPMC8928482
OpenAlexW2980977415

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.