Preferred Place of Death in Adult Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Identifying the preferred place of death is a key indicator of the quality of death in cancer patients and one of the most important issues for health service policymakers. This study was done to determine the preferred place of death and the factors affecting it for adult patients with cancer. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis study four online databases (PubMed, Scopus, web of science, ProQuest) were searched by relevant keywords. Quality assessment of papers was conducted using Newcastle-Ottawa (NOS) criterion. Odds ratios, relative risks, and 95% confidence intervals were determined for each of the factors extracted from the investigations. Results: A total of 14,920 participants of 27 studies were included into the meta-analysis. Based on the results, 55% of cancer patients with a confidence interval [95% CI (41–49)] preferred home, 17% of patients with a confidence interval [95% CI (−12%) 23)] preferred hospital and 10% of patients with confidence interval [95% CI (13–18)] preferred hospices as their favored place to die. Effective factors were also reported in the form of demographic characteristics, disease-related factors and psychosocial factors. Conclusions: This study showed that more than half of cancer patients chose home as their preferred place of death. Therefore, guided policies need to ensure that the death of the patients in the preferred place should be considered with priority. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020218680 , identifier: CRD42020218680.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".