Valuing End-of-Life Care for Older People with Advanced Cancer: Is Dying at Home Important?

Patricia Kenny (), Deborah J. Street, Jane Hall, Meera Agar and Jane Phillips
Additional contact information
Patricia Kenny: University of Technology Sydney
Deborah J. Street: University of Technology Sydney
Meera Agar: University of Technology Sydney
Jane Phillips: University of Technology Sydney

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2021, vol. 14, issue 6, No 9, 803-813

Abstract: Abstract Background Most health care systems are facing the challenge of providing health services to support the increasing numbers of older people with chronic life-limiting conditions at the end of life. Many policies focus primarily on increasing the proportion of deaths at home. Objectives This study aims to investigate preferences for care throughout the latter stages of a life-limiting illness, particularly the importance of location of care, location of death, and the use of life-sustaining measures. It focuses on preferences for the care of an older person with advanced cancer in the last 3 weeks of life. Methods A survey using discrete choice experiment (DCE) methods was completed online by a general population sample of 1548 Australians aged 45 years and over. The experiment included 12 attributes, and each respondent completed 11 choice sets. Analysis was by a mixed logit model and latent class analysis (LCA). Results The most important attributes influencing care preferences were cost, patient anxiety, pain control, and carer stress (relative importance scores 0.21, 0.19, 0.14, and 0.14, respectively), with less importance given to place of care and place of death (relative importance scores 0.03 and 0.01). The model predicted that 42% would consider receiving most care in hospital better than at home (58%) holding the levels of other attributes constant across the alternatives, while 42% would consider death in hospital better than at home (58%). Three population segments with different preferences were identified by the LCA, the largest (46.5%) prioritised how the patient and carer felt as well as the pain control achieved, the next largest (28.1%) prioritised cost, and the smallest segment (25.4%) prioritised a single room when an inpatient. Conclusions This study shows that investment in services to support people at the end of life would be better targeted toward programmes that improve patient and carer wellbeing irrespective of the location of care and death.

Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00517-z Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00517-z

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40271

DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00517-z

Access Statistics for this article

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research is currently edited by Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research from Springer, International Academy of Health Preference Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().