Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34473834›Full record

Trial reportAge and ageing2021

Patients' preferred place of death: patients are willing to consider their preferences, but someone has to ask them.

Iris van Doorne, Marjon van Rijn, Sjoerd M Dofferhoff, Dick L Willems, Bianca M Buurman

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Age and ageing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Iris van DoorneSection of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marjon van RijnSection of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sjoerd M DofferhoffSection of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dick L WillemsSection of Medical Ethics, Department of General Practice, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bianca M BuurmanSection of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundend-of-life care is not always in line with end-of-life preferences, so patients do not always die at their preferred place of death (PPD). This study aims to identify factors associated with patients' PPD and changes in PPD.

methodswe prospectively collected data on PPD at four time points within 6 months from 230 acutely hospitalised older patients who were part of the control group in a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial. Associations between patient characteristics and preferences were calculated using multivariable (multinomial) logistic regression analysis.

resultsthe mean age of participants was 80.7 years. 47.8% of the patients had no PPD at hospital admission. Patients previously admitted to hospital preferred to die at home (home versus no preference: odds ratio [OR] 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-4.92; home versus healthcare facility: OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.15-9.16). Patients with more chronic diseases preferred the healthcare facility as their PPD (healthcare facility versus no preference: OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.09-1.61; healthcare facility versus home: OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.00-1.47). 32 of 65 patients changed their preference during follow-up, and most of these had no PPD at hospital admission (home versus no preference: OR 0.005, 95% CI ≤0.001-0.095) and poorer self-rated well-being (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.07-3.08).

conclusionsalmost half of the patients had no PPD at baseline. Previous hospital admission, having more chronic diseases and living alone are associated with having a PPD. Introducing PPD could make older people aware of PPD and facilitate optimal palliative care.

Indexed as

Terminal CareAgedAged, 80 and overAttitude to DeathDeathHospitalizationHumansPalliative CarePatient Preferenceolder peoplepalliative carepreferred place of death

Identifiers

PMID34473834
PMCPMC8581384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.