Predictors of the final place of care of patients with advanced cancer receiving integrated home-based palliative care: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Meeting patients' preferences for place of care at the end-of-life is an indicator of quality palliative care. Understanding the key elements required for terminal care within an integrated model may inform policy and practice, and consequently increase the likelihood of meeting patients' preferences. Hence, this study aimed to identify factors associated with the final place of care in patients with advanced cancer receiving integrated, home-based palliative care. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included deceased adult patients with advanced cancer who were enrolled in the home-based palliative care service between January 2016 and December 2018. Patients with < 2 weeks' enrollment in the home-based service, or ≤ 1-week duration at the final place of care, were excluded. The following information were retrieved from patients' electronic medical records: patients' and their families' characteristics, care preferences, healthcare utilization, functional status (measured by the Palliative Performance Scale (PPSv2)), and symptom severity (measured by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System). Multivariate logistic regression was employed to identify independent predictors of the final place of care. Kappa value was calculated to estimate the concordance between actual and preferred place of death. RESULTS: A total of 359 patients were included in the study. Home was the most common (58.2%) final place of care, followed by inpatient hospice (23.7%), and hospital (16.7%). Patients who were single or divorced (OR: 5.5; 95% CI: 1.1-27.8), or had older family caregivers (OR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.1-8.8), PPSv2 score ≥ 40% (OR: 9.1; 95% CI: 3.3-24.8), pain score ≥ 2 (OR: 3.6; 95% CI: 1.3-9.8), and non-home death preference (OR: 23.8; 95% CI: 5.4-105.1), were more likely to receive terminal care in the inpatient hospice. Patients who were male (OR: 3.2; 95% CI: 1.0-9.9), or had PPSv2 score ≥ 40% (OR: 8.6; 95% CI: 2.9-26.0), pain score ≥ 2 (OR: 3.5; 95% CI: 1.2-10.3), and non-home death preference (OR: 9.8; 95% CI: 2.1-46.3), were more likely to be hospitalized. Goal-concordance was fair (72.6%, kappa = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Higher functional status, greater pain intensity, and non-home death preference predicted institutionalization as the final place of care. Additionally, single or divorced patients with older family caregivers were more likely to receive terminal care in the inpatient hospice, while males were more likely to be hospitalized. Despite being part of an integrated care model, goal-concordance was sub-optimal. More comprehensive community networks and resources, enhanced pain control, and personalized care planning discussions, are recommended to better meet patients' preferences for their final place of care. Future research could similarly examine factors associated with the final place of care in patients with advanced non-cancer conditions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".