How the COVID-19 pandemic shaped Canadians' preferences for setting of dying: Comparison of two panel surveys.

Q3 Medicine
Laura M Funk, Corey S Mackenzie, Li-Elle Rapaport, Maria Cherba, S Robin Cohen, Marian Krawczyk, Andrea Rounce, Kelli I Stajduhar
{"title":"How the COVID-19 pandemic shaped Canadians' preferences for setting of dying: Comparison of two panel surveys.","authors":"Laura M Funk, Corey S Mackenzie, Li-Elle Rapaport, Maria Cherba, S Robin Cohen, Marian Krawczyk, Andrea Rounce, Kelli I Stajduhar","doi":"10.1177/08404704241297037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The purpose of this article is to assess whether COVID-19 shaped Canadians' preferred settings of dying. We compared data collected using the same survey from two independent but comparable sets of panel respondents, prior to and after the onset of the pandemic. A vignette methodology was used to assess preferences for dying in each of four settings: home, acute/intensive care, palliative care, and long-term residential care. Although preferences for dying at home, in acute/intensive care and palliative care units did not change, preferences for dying in nursing homes significantly declined. In the pandemic's first and second waves, the spread of knowledge about problems of poor care, visitation restrictions, and fears of contagion in Canadian long-term residential care may have shaped public perceptions of and preferences for dying these settings. If this change persists, it may influence advance care planning decisions. That preferences for dying at home did not shift is, however, noteworthy.</p>","PeriodicalId":39854,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare Management Forum","volume":" ","pages":"8404704241297037"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare Management Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08404704241297037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to assess whether COVID-19 shaped Canadians' preferred settings of dying. We compared data collected using the same survey from two independent but comparable sets of panel respondents, prior to and after the onset of the pandemic. A vignette methodology was used to assess preferences for dying in each of four settings: home, acute/intensive care, palliative care, and long-term residential care. Although preferences for dying at home, in acute/intensive care and palliative care units did not change, preferences for dying in nursing homes significantly declined. In the pandemic's first and second waves, the spread of knowledge about problems of poor care, visitation restrictions, and fears of contagion in Canadian long-term residential care may have shaped public perceptions of and preferences for dying these settings. If this change persists, it may influence advance care planning decisions. That preferences for dying at home did not shift is, however, noteworthy.

COVID-19 大流行如何影响加拿大人对死亡环境的偏好:两项小组调查的比较。
本文旨在评估 COVID-19 是否影响了加拿大人的首选死亡环境。我们比较了大流行病爆发前和爆发后两组独立但具有可比性的小组受访者使用同一调查收集的数据。我们采用了小故事法来评估在以下四种环境中死亡的偏好:居家、急症/重症监护、姑息治疗和长期住院护理。虽然在家中、急症/重症监护室和姑息治疗病房死亡的偏好没有变化,但在疗养院死亡的偏好却显著下降。在大流行的第一波和第二波中,有关加拿大长期寄宿护理机构护理不善、探视限制和担心传染等问题的知识传播可能影响了公众对在这些机构中死亡的看法和偏好。如果这种变化持续下去,可能会影响到预先护理规划的决定。不过,值得注意的是,在家中死亡的偏好并没有改变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Healthcare Management Forum
Healthcare Management Forum Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Healthcare Management Forum is the official journal of the Canadian College of Health Service Executives. It is the only peer-reviewed journal that covers issues related to advances in health services management, theory and practice in a Canadian context. The quality of its contributors, the rigorous review process and the leading-edge topics make it truly unique!
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信