Association of Palliative Care with Days at Home and Healthcare Use in Patients with Advanced Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Palliative care focuses on improving quality of life for patients with life-limiting conditions. Although previous studies have shown palliative care to be associated with reduced acute healthcare use in people with cancer and other illnesses, these findings may not generalize to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objectives We examined the association between palliative care and rates of days at home, locations of death, and acute healthcare use in patients with COPD. Methods We used health administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, to identify patients with advanced COPD hospitalized between April 2010 and March 2017 and followed up until March 2018. Patients who received palliative care were matched 1:1 with those who did not receive palliative care in terms of age, sex, long-term oxygen, previous COPD hospitalizations and propensity scores. Rate ratios (RR) were estimated by using Poisson models with generalized estimating equations to account for matching. Results Among 35,492 patients, 1,788 (5%) received palliative care. In the matched cohort (1,721 pairs), people with COPD receiving palliative care had similar rates of days at home (RR, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97–1.05) but were more likely to die at home (16.4% vs. 10.0%; P < 0.001) compared with those who did not receive palliative care. Rates of healthcare use were similar except for increased hospitalizations in the palliative care group (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01–1.18). Conclusions Receipt of palliative care did not reduce days at home or healthcare use but was associated with a modest increase in the proportion who died at home. Future work should evaluate palliative care strategies designed specifically for patients with COPD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".