社区对临终老年人护理的偏好:疾病背景有多重要?

Patricia Kenny, Deborah J. Street, Jane Hall, Meera R. Agar, Jane Phillips
{"title":"社区对临终老年人护理的偏好:疾病背景有多重要?","authors":"Patricia Kenny, Deborah J. Street, Jane Hall, Meera R. Agar, Jane Phillips","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00675-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>Population preferences for care at the end of life can inform palliative care policy and direction. Research investigating preferences for care at the end of life has focused predominantly on the context of advanced cancer, with relatively little attention to other life-limiting illnesses that are common causes of death.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objectives</h3><p>We aimed to investigate preferences for the care of older people at the end of life in three different disease contexts. The purpose was to understand if population preferences for care in the last 3 weeks of life would differ for patients dying from cancer, heart failure or dementia.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>Three discrete choice experiments were conducted in Australia with a general population sample using similar methods but different end-of-life disease contexts. Some attributes were common across the three experiments and others differed to accommodate the specific disease context. Each survey was completed by a different panel sample aged ≥45 years (cancer, <i>n</i> = 1548; dementia, <i>n</i> = 1549; heart failure, <i>n</i> = 1003). Analysis was by separate mixed logit models.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>The most important attributes across all three surveys were costs to the patient and family, patient symptoms and informal carer stress. The probability of choosing an alternative was lowest (0.18–0.29) when any one of these attributes was at the least favourable level, holding other attributes constant across alternatives. The cancer survey explored symptoms more specifically and found patient anxiety with a higher relative importance score than the symptom attribute of pain. Dementia was the only context where most respondents preferred to not have a medical intervention to prolong life; the probability of choosing an alternative with a feeding tube was 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.36–0.43).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>This study suggests a need for affordable services that focus on improving patient and carer well-being irrespective of the location of care, and this message is consistent across different disease contexts, including cancer, heart failure and dementia. It also suggests some different considerations in the context of people dying from dementia where medical intervention to prolong life was less desirable.</p>","PeriodicalId":501651,"journal":{"name":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","volume":"96 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Community Preferences for the Care of Older People at the End of Life: How Important is the Disease Context?\",\"authors\":\"Patricia Kenny, Deborah J. Street, Jane Hall, Meera R. Agar, Jane Phillips\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40271-024-00675-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Background</h3><p>Population preferences for care at the end of life can inform palliative care policy and direction. Research investigating preferences for care at the end of life has focused predominantly on the context of advanced cancer, with relatively little attention to other life-limiting illnesses that are common causes of death.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Objectives</h3><p>We aimed to investigate preferences for the care of older people at the end of life in three different disease contexts. The purpose was to understand if population preferences for care in the last 3 weeks of life would differ for patients dying from cancer, heart failure or dementia.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>Three discrete choice experiments were conducted in Australia with a general population sample using similar methods but different end-of-life disease contexts. Some attributes were common across the three experiments and others differed to accommodate the specific disease context. Each survey was completed by a different panel sample aged ≥45 years (cancer, <i>n</i> = 1548; dementia, <i>n</i> = 1549; heart failure, <i>n</i> = 1003). Analysis was by separate mixed logit models.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>The most important attributes across all three surveys were costs to the patient and family, patient symptoms and informal carer stress. The probability of choosing an alternative was lowest (0.18–0.29) when any one of these attributes was at the least favourable level, holding other attributes constant across alternatives. The cancer survey explored symptoms more specifically and found patient anxiety with a higher relative importance score than the symptom attribute of pain. Dementia was the only context where most respondents preferred to not have a medical intervention to prolong life; the probability of choosing an alternative with a feeding tube was 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.36–0.43).</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>This study suggests a need for affordable services that focus on improving patient and carer well-being irrespective of the location of care, and this message is consistent across different disease contexts, including cancer, heart failure and dementia. It also suggests some different considerations in the context of people dying from dementia where medical intervention to prolong life was less desirable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\"96 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00675-w\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00675-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景人群对临终关怀的偏好可以为姑息关怀政策和方向提供参考。对生命末期护理偏好的调查研究主要集中在晚期癌症的情况下,而对作为常见死因的其他限制生命的疾病的关注相对较少。方法我们在澳大利亚对普通人群样本进行了三次离散选择实验,采用的方法相似,但临终疾病的情况不同。三个实验中的某些属性是相同的,而其他属性则因具体疾病而异。每项调查都由年龄≥45 岁的不同小组样本完成(癌症,n = 1548;痴呆症,n = 1549;心力衰竭,n = 1003)。结果在所有三项调查中,最重要的属性是患者和家庭的费用、患者症状和非正式护理人员的压力。在其他属性不变的情况下,当其中任何一个属性处于最不利的水平时,选择替代方案的概率最低(0.18-0.29)。癌症调查对症状进行了更具体的探讨,发现患者焦虑的相对重要性得分高于疼痛这一症状属性。痴呆症是唯一一种大多数受访者倾向于不采取医疗干预措施来延长生命的疾病;选择带有喂食管的替代方案的概率为 0.40(95% 置信区间为 0.36-0.43)。这项研究还表明,对于因痴呆症而死亡的患者,需要考虑一些不同的因素,因为他们不太希望通过医疗干预来延长生命。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Community Preferences for the Care of Older People at the End of Life: How Important is the Disease Context?

Community Preferences for the Care of Older People at the End of Life: How Important is the Disease Context?

Background

Population preferences for care at the end of life can inform palliative care policy and direction. Research investigating preferences for care at the end of life has focused predominantly on the context of advanced cancer, with relatively little attention to other life-limiting illnesses that are common causes of death.

Objectives

We aimed to investigate preferences for the care of older people at the end of life in three different disease contexts. The purpose was to understand if population preferences for care in the last 3 weeks of life would differ for patients dying from cancer, heart failure or dementia.

Methods

Three discrete choice experiments were conducted in Australia with a general population sample using similar methods but different end-of-life disease contexts. Some attributes were common across the three experiments and others differed to accommodate the specific disease context. Each survey was completed by a different panel sample aged ≥45 years (cancer, n = 1548; dementia, n = 1549; heart failure, n = 1003). Analysis was by separate mixed logit models.

Results

The most important attributes across all three surveys were costs to the patient and family, patient symptoms and informal carer stress. The probability of choosing an alternative was lowest (0.18–0.29) when any one of these attributes was at the least favourable level, holding other attributes constant across alternatives. The cancer survey explored symptoms more specifically and found patient anxiety with a higher relative importance score than the symptom attribute of pain. Dementia was the only context where most respondents preferred to not have a medical intervention to prolong life; the probability of choosing an alternative with a feeding tube was 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.36–0.43).

Conclusions

This study suggests a need for affordable services that focus on improving patient and carer well-being irrespective of the location of care, and this message is consistent across different disease contexts, including cancer, heart failure and dementia. It also suggests some different considerations in the context of people dying from dementia where medical intervention to prolong life was less desirable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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