MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Place of Death From Cancer in US States With vs Without Palliative Care Laws

2023· article· en· W4379768987 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Main Lin Quan Vega, Stanford Chihuri, Deven Lackraj, Komal Patel Murali, Guohua Li, May Hua

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMailman School of Public Health, Columbia UniversityNational Institute of General Medical SciencesSchool of Medicine and Health Sciences, George Washington UniversityYork UniversityGeorge Washington University
KeywordsPalliative careLegislationDeath certificateMedicineCancerEthnic groupEnd-of-life careCause of deathFamily medicineDemographyLawGerontologyNursingDiseasePolitical scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: In the US, improving end-of-life care has become increasingly urgent. Some states have enacted legislation intended to facilitate palliative care delivery for seriously ill patients, but it is unknown whether these laws have any measurable consequences for patient outcomes. Objective: To determine whether US state palliative care legislation is associated with place of death from cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study with a difference-in-differences analysis used information about state legislation combined with death certificate data for 50 US states (from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2017) for all decedents who had any type of cancer listed as the underlying cause of death. Data analysis for this study occurred between September 1, 2021, and August 31, 2022. Exposures: Presence of a nonprescriptive (relating to palliative and end-of-life care without prescribing particular clinician actions) or prescriptive (requiring clinicians to offer patients information about care options) palliative care law in the state-year where death occurred. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multilevel relative risk regression with state modeled as a random effect was used to estimate the likelihood of dying at home or hospice for decedents dying in state-years with a palliative care law compared with decedents dying in state-years without such laws. Results: This study included 7 547 907 individuals with cancer as the underlying cause of death. Their mean (SD) age was 71 (14) years, and 3 609 146 were women (47.8%). In terms of race and ethnicity, the majority of decedents were White (85.6%) and non-Hispanic (94.1%). During the study period, 553 state-years (85.1%) had no palliative care law, 60 state-years (9.2%) had a nonprescriptive palliative care law, and 37 state-years (5.7%) had a prescriptive palliative care law. A total of 3 780 918 individuals (50.1%) died at home or in hospice. Most decedents (70.8%) died in state-years without a palliative care law, while 15.7% died in state-years with a nonprescriptive law and 13.5% died in state-years with a prescriptive law. Compared with state-years without a palliative care law, the likelihood of dying at home or in hospice was 12% higher for decedents in state-years with a nonprescriptive palliative care law (relative risk, 1.12 [95% CI 1.08-1.16]) and 18% higher for decedents in state-years with a prescriptive palliative care law (relative risk, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.11-1.26]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of decedents from cancer, state palliative care laws were associated with an increased likelihood of dying at home or in hospice. Passage of state palliative care legislation may be an effective policy intervention to increase the number of seriously ill patients who experience their death in such locations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207