Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33876399›Full record

ArticleThe patient2021

Valuing End-of-Life Care for Older People with Advanced Cancer: Is Dying at Home Important?

Patricia Kenny, Deborah J Street, Jane Hall, Meera Agar, Jane Phillips

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. [Chemotherapy at the end of life is compatible with dignified death and palliative care]Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina) · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Patricia KennyCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, PO Box 123, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia. patsy.kenny@chere.uts.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-5021-4758
Deborah J StreetCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, PO Box 123, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4476-0656
Jane HallCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, PO Box 123, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2191-0543
Meera AgarImproving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care through Clinical Research and Translation (IMPACCT), University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6756-6119
Jane PhillipsImproving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care through Clinical Research and Translation (IMPACCT), University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3691-8230
University of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost health care systems are facing the challenge of providing health services to support the increasing numbers of older people with chronic life-limiting conditions at the end of life. Many policies focus primarily on increasing the proportion of deaths at home.

objectivesThis study aims to investigate preferences for care throughout the latter stages of a life-limiting illness, particularly the importance of location of care, location of death, and the use of life-sustaining measures. It focuses on preferences for the care of an older person with advanced cancer in the last 3 weeks of life.

methodsA survey using discrete choice experiment (DCE) methods was completed online by a general population sample of 1548 Australians aged 45 years and over. The experiment included 12 attributes, and each respondent completed 11 choice sets. Analysis was by a mixed logit model and latent class analysis (LCA).

resultsThe most important attributes influencing care preferences were cost, patient anxiety, pain control, and carer stress (relative importance scores 0.21, 0.19, 0.14, and 0.14, respectively), with less importance given to place of care and place of death (relative importance scores 0.03 and 0.01). The model predicted that 42% would consider receiving most care in hospital better than at home (58%) holding the levels of other attributes constant across the alternatives, while 42% would consider death in hospital better than at home (58%). Three population segments with different preferences were identified by the LCA, the largest (46.5%) prioritised how the patient and carer felt as well as the pain control achieved, the next largest (28.1%) prioritised cost, and the smallest segment (25.4%) prioritised a single room when an inpatient.

conclusionsThis study shows that investment in services to support people at the end of life would be better targeted toward programmes that improve patient and carer wellbeing irrespective of the location of care and death.

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesNeoplasmsTerminal CareAgedAustraliaCaregiversHumansPatient PreferenceSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID33876399
OpenAlexW3153123618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.