ArticleBMC palliative care2024
Differences in end-of-life care patterns between types of hospice used for cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Affecting the Use of Hospice Care and Timing of Its Initiation: Comparing Single and Combined Hospice Users Among Korean Adult Cancer Decedents.Journal of hospice and palliative care · 2026Article
- Timing of hospice care initiation and aggressive care utilization in patients with cancer: a retrospective nationwide study in Korea.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The Impact of Advanced Care Planning on Hospice Utilization in Patients with Cancer: A Nationwide Analysis in Korea.Cancers · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn response to the rapid aging population and increasing number of cancer patients, discussions on dignified end-of-life (EoL) decisions are active around the world. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the differences in EoL care patterns between types of hospice used for cancer patients.
methodsIn this population-based cohort study, the Korean National Health Insurance Service cohort data containing all registered cancer patients who died between 2017 and 2021 were used. A total of 408,964 individuals were eligible for analysis. The variable of interest, the type of hospice used in the 6 months before death, was classified as follows: (1) Non-hospice users; (2) Hospital-based hospice single users; (3) Home-based hospice single users; (4) Combined hospice users. The outcomes were set as patterns of care, including intense care and supportive care. To identify differences in care patterns between hospice types, a generalized linear model with zero-inflated negative binomial distribution was applied.
resultsHospice enrollment was associated with less intense care and more supportive care near death. Notably, those who used combined hospice care had the lowest probability and frequency of receiving intense care (aOR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.17-0.19, aRR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.44-0.49), while home-based hospice single users had the highest probability and frequency of receiving supportive care (Prescription for narcotic analgesics, aOR: 2.95, 95% CI: 2.69-3.23, aRR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.41-1.49; Mental health care, aOR: 3.40, 95% CI: 3.13-3.69, aRR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.31-1.39).
conclusionOur findings suggest that although intense care for life-sustaining decreases with hospice enrollment, QoL at the EoL actually improves with appropriate supportive care. This study is meaningful in that it not only offers valuable insight into hospice care for terminally ill patients, but also provides policy implications for the introduction of patient-centered community-based hospice services.
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.