ArticleOTO open
Medicaid Expansion Status and Receipt of Palliative Care in Stage IV Oral Cavity Cancer.
Article in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Early and integrated palliative care (PC) interventions are recommended for advanced-stage cancers. The rate with which patients with stage IV oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) receive PC as part of their oncologic care is unknown. We sought to understand the utilization of PC for patients with stage IV OCSCC in Medicaid expanded versus non-expanded states. Study Design: Retrospective cohort. Setting: National Cancer Database was queried for patients with stage IV OCSCC from 2004 to 2017. Methods: Patients in Medicaid expanded (EXP) states were categorized as pre-expansion (pre-EXP) or post-expansion (post-EXP). Patients in nonexpanded states (NEXP) were categorized as diagnosed before 2014 (pre-NEXP) or during/after 2014 (post-NEXP). Multivariable logistic regressions were used to compare receipt of PC among pre-EXP and post-EXP patients, and separately among post-EXP and post-NEXP cases. Results: Among 15,356 patients who met inclusion criteria, 629 (4.10%) received PC. There was a trend towards increased receipt of PC in post-EXP compared to pre-EXP cases, but this did not reach statistical significance. Among pre-EXP and post-EXP cases, patients were more likely to receive PC with the lowest income quartile, tongue cancer as the oral cavity subsite, and no insurance. Conclusion: There was no significant difference of PC receipt for patients with stage IV OCSCC in Medicaid expanded versus non-expanded states. Results among patients in pre-EXP and post-EXP states suggest increased PC use among more disadvantaged patient groups. Further analysis on receipt of PC in vulnerable patient populations with advanced-stage cancer is warranted.
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.