Underutilization of palliative care in advanced COPD and heart failure: associations, disparities, and the role of specialists.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Lior Zornitzki, Neta Sror, Amir Bar-Shai, Rotem Tellem, Shmuel Banai, Shir Frydman, Gil Bornstein, Ophir Freund
{"title":"Underutilization of palliative care in advanced COPD and heart failure: associations, disparities, and the role of specialists.","authors":"Lior Zornitzki, Neta Sror, Amir Bar-Shai, Rotem Tellem, Shmuel Banai, Shir Frydman, Gil Bornstein, Ophir Freund","doi":"10.1177/17534666251364056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Palliative care is essential for managing advanced chronic illnesses (ACI) but remains underused.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to evaluate the prevalence, associations, and outcomes of palliative care utilization (PCU) in patients with ACIs.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A prospective observational questionnaire-based study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included hospitalized patients with severe COPD (<i>n</i> = 53), advanced heart failure (HF; <i>n</i> = 56), or metastatic malignancy (<i>n</i> = 57). Participants were interviewed about their demographics, health status, PCU, and end-of-life decision-making.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 166 subjects were included (median age: 77 years; 41% females), with a 1-year median of 2 hospital admissions. Subjects with COPD and HF had low rates of PCU compared to those with malignancy (6% and 11% vs 39%, <i>p</i> < 0.01). PCU occurred exclusively in patients who had visited a specialist (cardiologist, pulmonologist, or oncologist) before study inclusion. Patients with PCU were more aware of advance directives (71% vs 38%), signed advanced orders (23% vs 3%), and shared their end-of-life decisions with others (71% vs 29%). These differences remained significant after adjustment for prior specialist visits. Independent associations with PCU were self-identifying as non-religious (adjusted OR 3.41, 95% CI 1.2-9.9), above high-school education (AOR 2.84, 95% CI 1.1-7.3), and chronic pain (aOR 2.81, 95% CI 1.11-7.14), while COPD showed the opposite (aOR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07-0.96).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Palliative care utilization is alarmingly low among patients with HF and COPD despite significant symptom burden. Specialists should advocate for PCU as their involvement could enhance end-of-life care planning, improve patient outcomes, and address current gaps in care.</p>","PeriodicalId":22884,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease","volume":"19 ","pages":"17534666251364056"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12344236/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17534666251364056","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Palliative care is essential for managing advanced chronic illnesses (ACI) but remains underused.

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the prevalence, associations, and outcomes of palliative care utilization (PCU) in patients with ACIs.

Design: A prospective observational questionnaire-based study.

Methods: The study included hospitalized patients with severe COPD (n = 53), advanced heart failure (HF; n = 56), or metastatic malignancy (n = 57). Participants were interviewed about their demographics, health status, PCU, and end-of-life decision-making.

Results: A total of 166 subjects were included (median age: 77 years; 41% females), with a 1-year median of 2 hospital admissions. Subjects with COPD and HF had low rates of PCU compared to those with malignancy (6% and 11% vs 39%, p < 0.01). PCU occurred exclusively in patients who had visited a specialist (cardiologist, pulmonologist, or oncologist) before study inclusion. Patients with PCU were more aware of advance directives (71% vs 38%), signed advanced orders (23% vs 3%), and shared their end-of-life decisions with others (71% vs 29%). These differences remained significant after adjustment for prior specialist visits. Independent associations with PCU were self-identifying as non-religious (adjusted OR 3.41, 95% CI 1.2-9.9), above high-school education (AOR 2.84, 95% CI 1.1-7.3), and chronic pain (aOR 2.81, 95% CI 1.11-7.14), while COPD showed the opposite (aOR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07-0.96).

Conclusion: Palliative care utilization is alarmingly low among patients with HF and COPD despite significant symptom burden. Specialists should advocate for PCU as their involvement could enhance end-of-life care planning, improve patient outcomes, and address current gaps in care.

晚期COPD和心力衰竭患者姑息治疗的利用不足:关联、差异和专家的作用。
背景:姑息治疗对晚期慢性疾病(ACI)的治疗至关重要,但仍未得到充分利用。目的:我们旨在评估ACIs患者姑息治疗(PCU)的患病率、相关性和结果。设计:前瞻性观察性问卷研究。方法:研究纳入住院的严重慢性阻塞性肺病患者(n = 53),晚期心力衰竭(HF;N = 56)或转移性恶性肿瘤(N = 57)。参与者接受了关于他们的人口统计、健康状况、PCU和临终决策的采访。结果:共纳入166例受试者(中位年龄:77岁;41%为女性),1年内平均住院2次。与恶性肿瘤患者相比,慢性阻塞性肺病和慢性阻塞性肺病患者的PCU率较低(分别为6%和11% vs 39%)。结论:尽管有显著的症状负担,但心衰和慢性阻塞性肺病患者的姑息治疗使用率低得惊人。专家应该提倡PCU,因为他们的参与可以加强临终关怀计划,改善病人的结果,并解决目前护理方面的差距。
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
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
57
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies across all areas of respiratory disease.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信