ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2021
Predictors of death at home among cancer patients in Israel: a population-based study.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Place of Death for Israeli Cancer Patients Over a 20-Year Period: Reducing Hospital Deaths, but Barriers Remain.The oncologist · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost cancer patients prefer to die at home; however, many die in hospital. The aim of the current study is to elucidate the association between dying at home and various personal factors in the Israeli population of cancer patients.
methodsData on cancer incidence (2008-2015) and death (2008-2017) was provided by the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics and the Israel National Cancer Registry. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed to assess odds ratios for death at home following cancer diagnosis while controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, years of education, residential socioeconomic score, and time from diagnosis. We also assessed the relation between place of death and specific cancer sites, as well as the time trend from 2008 to 2017.
resultsAbout one quarter (26.7%) of the study population died at home. Death at home was most frequent among patients diagnosed with brain tumors (37.0%), while it was the lowest among patients with hematologic malignancies (lymphoma and leukemia, 20.3 and 20.0%, respectively). Rates of dying at home among patients with residential socioeconomic scores of 1, 2-9, and 10 were about 15, 30, and 42.9%, respectively. In patients from the 4th to the 7th decades of life, rates of death at home increased at a linear rate that increased exponentially from the 8th decade onwards. After controlling for potential confounders, predictive variables for death at home included age (OR = 1.020 per year, 95% CI 1.017-1.024), male sex (OR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.077-1.294), years of education (OR = 1.029 per year, 95% CI 1.018-1.040), and time from diagnosis (OR = 1.003 per month, 95% CI 1.001-1.005 all p < 0.001). No trend was seen from 2008 to 2013, while from 2014 to 2017 a slight increase in the rate of death at home was seen each year.
conclusionsThese results indicate wide variability in death at home exists among patients of different ages, sex, education, socioeconomic status and time from diagnosis. These findings stress the importance of delivering quality palliative care at home, mainly for patients with hematologic malignancies, younger patients, and patients of very low socioeconomic status. Understanding the complex mechanisms whereby patient preferences and the above variables may determine the preferred place of death remains an important research priority.
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.