Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34428311›Full record

ArticleCancer2021

Intensity of end-of-life care for dual-eligible beneficiaries with cancer and the impact of delivery system affiliation.

Lindsey A Herrel, Ziwei Zhu, Andrew M Ryan, Brent K Hollenbeck, David C Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Lindsey A HerrelDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.ORCID 0000-0003-0221-0784
Ziwei ZhuDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Andrew M RyanInstitute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Brent K HollenbeckDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
David C MillerDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Funding

XenograftP30CA046592 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Alexey I Nesvizhskii · 1988 to 2026
$178.2M
Understanding optimal delivery systems for cancer careR01CA174768 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MILLER, DAVID C · 2014 to 2018
$2.0M
Understanding the effects of the Oncology Care Model on cancer care for dual eligible patientsK08CA237638 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI HERREL, LINDSEY ALLISON · 2019 to 2023
$1.1M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS U58 DP003862NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000034CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000035CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000035INCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000140CNCI NIH HHS K08 CA237638NCI NIH HHS P30 CA046592NCI NIH HHS R01 CA174768NCI NIH HHS R01CA174768
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDual-eligible beneficiaries, who qualify for Medicare and Medicaid, are a vulnerable population with much to gain from efforts to improve quality. Integrated delivery networks and cancer centers, with their emphasis on care coordination and communication, may improve quality of care for dual-eligible patients with cancer at the end of life.

methodsThis study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry data linked with Medicare claims to evaluate quality for beneficiaries who died of cancer and were diagnosed from 2009 to 2014. High-intensity care was evaluated with 7 end-of-life quality measures according to dual-eligible status with multivariable logistic regression models. Regression-based techniques were used to assess the effect of delivery system affiliation (ie, cancer center or integrated delivery network vs no affiliation).

resultsAmong 100,549 beneficiaries who died during the study interval, 22% were dually eligible. Inferior outcomes were identified for dual-eligible beneficiaries in comparison with nondual beneficiaries across nearly every quality measure assessed, including >1 hospitalization in the last 30 days (12.6% vs 11.3%; P < .001) and a greater proportion of deaths occurring in a hospital setting (30.2% vs 26.2%; P < .001). Receipt of care in an affiliated delivery system was associated with reduced deaths in a hospital setting and increased hospice utilization for dual-eligible beneficiaries.

conclusionsDual-eligible status is associated with higher intensity care at the end of life. Delivery system affiliation has a modest impact on quality at the end of life, and this suggests that targeted efforts may be needed to optimize quality for this group of vulnerable patients.

Indexed as

Hospice CareNeoplasmsTerminal CareAgedHumansMedicaidMedicareUnited Statescancerdual-eligibleend of lifequality

Identifiers

PMID34428311
PMCPMC9199351

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.