Natalia Monteiro Calanzani

Heterogeneity and changes in preferences for dying at home: a systematic review

BackgroundHome-based models of hospice and palliative care are promoted with the argument that most people prefer to die at home. We examined the heterogeneity in preferences for home death and explored, for the first time, changes of preference with illness progression.MethodsWe searched for studies on adult preferences for place of care at the end of life or place of death in MEDLINE (1966–2011), EMBASE (1980–2011), psycINFO (1967–2011), CINAHL (1982–2011), six palliative care journals (2006–11) and reference lists. Standard criteria were used to grade study quality and evidence strength. Scatter plots showed the percentage preferring home death amongst patients, lay caregivers and general public, by study quality, year, weighted by sample size.Results210 studies reported preferences of just over 100,000 people from 33 countries, including 34,021 patients, 19,514 caregivers and 29,926 general public members. 68% of studies with quantitative data were of low quality; only 76 provided the question used to elicit preferences. There was moderate evidence that most people prefer a home death–this was found in 75% of studies, 9/14 of those of high quality. Amongst the latter and excluding outliers, home preference estimates ranged 31% to 87% for patients (9 studies), 25% to 64% for caregivers (5 studies), 49% to 70% for the public (4 studies). 20% of 1395 patients in 10 studies (2 of high quality) changed their preference, but statistical significance was untested.ConclusionsControlling for methodological weaknesses, we found evidence that most people prefer to die at home. Around four fifths of patients did not change preference as their illness progressed. This supports focusing on home-based care for patients with advanced illness yet urges policy-makers to secure hospice and palliative care elsewhere for those who think differently or change their mind. Research must be clear on how preferences are elicited. There is an urgent need for studies examining change of preferences towards death.

Preferences for place of death if faced with advanced cancer: a population survey in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.

BACKGROUND Cancer end-of-life care (EoLC) policies assume people want to die at home. We aimed to examine variations in preferences for place of death cross-nationally. METHODS A telephone survey of a random sample of individuals aged ≥16 in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. We determined where people would prefer to die if they had a serious illness such as advanced cancer, facilitating circumstances, personal values and experiences of illness, death and dying. RESULTS Of 9344 participants, between 51% (95% CI: 48% to 54%) in Portugal and 84% (95% CI: 82% to 86%) in the Netherlands would prefer to die at home. Cross-national analysis found there to be an influence of circumstances and values but not of experiences of illness, death and dying. Four factors were associated with a preference for home death in more than one country: younger age up to 70+ (Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain), increased importance of dying in the preferred place (England, Germany, Portugal, Spain), prioritizing keeping a positive attitude (Germany, Spain) and wanting to involve family in decisions if incapable (Flanders, Portugal). CONCLUSIONS At least two-thirds of people prefer a home death in all but one country studied. The strong association with personal values suggests keeping home care at the heart of cancer EoLC.

Reversal of the British trends in place of death: time series analysis 2004-2010.

Background: Increased attention is being paid to the place where people die with a view to providing choice and adequately planning care for terminally ill patients. Secular trends towards an institutionalised dying have been reported in Britain and other developed world regions. Aim: This study aimed to examine British national trends in place of death from 2004 to 2010. Design and setting: Descriptive analysis of death registration data from the Office for National Statistics, representing all 3,525,564 decedents in England and Wales from 2004 to 2010. Results: There was a slow but steady increase in the proportion of deaths at home, from 18.3% in 2004 to 20.8% in 2010. Absolute numbers of home deaths increased by 9.1%, whilst overall numbers of deaths decreased by 3.8%. The rise in home deaths was more pronounced in cancer, happened for both genders and across all age groups, except for those younger than 14 years and for those aged 65–84, but only up to 2006. The rise was more evident when ageing was accounted for (age–gender standardised proportions of home deaths increased from 20.6% to 23.5%). Conclusions: Following trends in the USA and Canada, dying is also shifting to people’s homes in Britain. Home deaths increased for the first time since 1974 amongst people aged 85 years and over. There is an urgent need across nations for comparative evidence on the outcomes and the costs of dying at home.

Dying at home – is it better: A narrative appraisal of the state of the science

Background: Achieving home care and home death is increasingly used as an outcome measure of palliative care services. Aim: To appraise the state of the science on dying at home. Methods: Appraisal and narrative review developed from a plenary presentation at the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) 2012 meeting examining the research on variations and trends in place of death, factors associated with dying in the preferred place, presenting evidence on outcomes for those dying at home and suggesting future research questions. Results: Meeting patients’ preferences and creating home-like environments has been a major concern for hospice and palliative care since its inception. During the 20th century, in many countries, hospital deaths increased and home deaths reduced. Despite the fact that this trend has been halted or reversed in some countries (notably the United States, Canada and, more recently, the United Kingdom) in the last 5–20 years, a home death is still a distant reality for the majority, even though evidence shows it is the most commonly preferred place to die. Epidemiological studies identified factors associated with home death, including affluence, patients’ preferences, provision of home care and extended family support. Evidence about the benefits of home care is conflicting, but recent data suggest that holistic well-being may be greater at home. Implications: We call for further analyses of variations in place of care and place of death and robust studies on how patients and families formulate and change preferences over time. Regular monitoring of outcomes, quality and costs of palliative home care is urged.

Priorities for treatment, care and information if faced with serious illness: a comparative population-based survey in seven European countries.

Background: Health-care costs are growing, with little population-based data about people’s priorities for end-of-life care, to guide service development and aid discussions. Aim: We examined variations in people’s priorities for treatment, care and information across seven European countries. Design: Telephone survey of a random sample of households; we asked respondents their priorities if ‘faced with a serious illness, like cancer, with limited time to live’ and used multivariable logistic regressions to identify associated factors. Setting/participants: Members of the general public aged ≥16 years residing in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Results: In total, 9344 individuals were interviewed. Most people chose ‘improve quality of life for the time they had left’, ranging from 57% (95% confidence interval: 55%–60%, Italy) to 81% (95% confidence interval: 79%–83%, Spain). Only 2% (95% confidence interval: 1%–3%, England) to 6% (95% confidence interval: 4%–7%, Flanders) said extending life was most important, and 15% (95% confidence interval: 13%–17%, Spain) to 40% (95% confidence interval: 37%–43%, Italy) said quality and extension were equally important. Prioritising quality of life was associated with higher education in all countries (odds ratio = 1.3 (Flanders) to 7.9 (Italy)), experience of caregiving or bereavement (England, Germany, Portugal), prioritising pain/symptom control over having a positive attitude and preferring death in a hospice/palliative care unit. Those prioritising extending life had the highest home death preference of all groups. Health status did not affect priorities. Conclusions: Across all countries, extending life was prioritised by a minority, regardless of health status. Treatment and care needs to be reoriented with patient education and palliative care becoming mainstream for serious conditions such as cancer.

To be involved or not to be involved: A survey of public preferences for self-involvement in decision-making involving mental capacity (competency) within Europe

Background: The Council of Europe has recommended that member states of European Union encourage their citizens to make decisions about their healthcare before they lose capacity to do so. However, it is unclear whether the public wants to make such decisions beforehand. Aim: To examine public preferences for self-involvement in end-of-life care decision-making and identify associated factors. Design: A population-based survey with 9344 adults in England, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Results: Across countries, 74% preferred self-involvement when capable; 44% preferred self-involvement when incapable through, for example, a living will. Four factors were associated with a preference for self-involvement across capacity and incapacity scenarios, respectively: higher educational attainment ((odds ratio = 1.93–2.77), (odds ratio = 1.33–1.80)); female gender ((odds ratio = 1.27, 95% confidence interval = 1.14–1.41), (odds ratio = 1.30, 95% confidence interval = 1.20–1.42)); younger-middle age ((30–59 years: odds ratio = 1.24–1.40), (50–59 years: odds ratio = 1.23, 95% confidence interval = 1.04–1.46)) and valuing quality over quantity of life or valuing both equally ((odds ratio = 1.49–1.58), (odds ratio = 1.35–1.53)). Those with increased financial hardship (odds ratio = 0.64–0.83) and a preference to die in hospital (not a palliative care unit) (odds ratio = 0.73, 95% confidence interval = 0.60–0.88), a nursing home or residential care (odds ratio = 0.73, 95% confidence interval = 0.54–0.99) were less likely to prefer self-involvement when capable. For the incapacity scenario, single people were more likely to prefer self-involvement (odds ratio = 1.34, 95% confidence interval = 1.18–1.53). Conclusions: Self-involvement in decision-making is important to the European public. However, a large proportion of the public prefer to not make decisions about their care in advance of incapacity. Financial hardship, educational attainment, age, and preferences regarding quality and quantity of life require further examination; these factors should be considered in relation to policy.

Benefits and Costs of Home Palliative Care Compared With Usual Care for Patients With Advanced Illness and Their Family Caregivers

CLINICAL QUESTION Are home palliative care services associated with benefits to patients with advanced illness and family caregivers, and are they cost-effective? BOTTOM LINE Compared with usual care, home palliative care is associated with increased odds of dying at home and fewer symptoms for patients with advanced illness. It is not associated with changes in caregiver grief. Cost-effectiveness is inconclusive.

‘Burden to others’ as a public concern in advanced cancer: a comparative survey in seven European countries

BackgroundEurope faces an enormous public health challenge with aging populations and rising cancer incidence. Little is known about what concerns the public across European countries regarding cancer care towards the end of life. We aimed to compare the level of public concern with different symptoms and problems in advanced cancer across Europe and examine factors influencing this.MethodsTelephone survey with 9,344 individuals aged ≥16 in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Participants were asked about nine symptoms and problems, imagining a situation of advanced cancer with less than one year to live. These were ranked and the three top concerns examined in detail. As ‘burden to others’ showed most variation within and between countries, we determined the relative influence of factors on this concern using GEE and logistic regression.ResultsOverall response rate was 21%. Pain was the top concern in all countries, from 34% participants (Italy) to 49% (Flanders). Burden was second in England, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. Breathlessness was second in Flanders and the Netherlands. Concern with burden was independently associated with age (70+ years, OR 1.50; 95%CI 1.24-1.82), living alone (OR 0.82, 95%CI 0.73-0.93) and preferring quality rather than quantity of life (OR 1.43, 95%CI 1.14-1.80).ConclusionsWhen imagining a last year of life with cancer, the public is not only concerned about medical problems but also about being a burden. Public education about palliative care and symptom control is needed. Cancer care should include a routine assessment and management of social concerns, particularly for older patients with poor prognosis.

Home care by general practitioners for cancer patients in the last 3 months of life: An epidemiological study of quality and associated factors

Background: Stronger generalist end-of-life care at home for people with cancer is called for but the quality of end-of-life care delivered by general practitioners has been questioned. Aim: To determine the degree of and factors associated with bereaved relatives’ satisfaction with home end-of-life care delivered by general practitioners to cancer patients. Design: Population-based mortality followback survey. Setting/participants: Bereaved relatives of people who died of cancer in London, United Kingdom (identified from death registrations in 2009–2010), were invited to complete a postal questionnaire surveying the deceased’s final 3 months of life. Results: Questionnaires were completed for 596 decedents of whom 548 spent at least 1 day at home in the last 3 months of life. Of the respondents, 55% (95% confidence interval: 51%–59%) reported excellent/very good home care by general practitioners, compared with 78% (95% confidence interval: 74%–82%) for specialist palliative care providers and 68% (95% confidence interval: 64%–73%) for district/community/private nurses. The odds of high satisfaction (excellent/very good) with end-of-life care by general practitioners doubled if general practitioners made three or more compared with one or no home visits in the patient’s last 3 months of life (adjusted odds ratio: 2.54 (95% confidence interval: 1.52–4.24)) and halved if the patient died at hospital rather than at home (adjusted odds ratio: 0.55 (95% confidence interval: 0.31–0.998)). Conclusion: There is considerable room for improvement in the satisfaction with home care provided by general practitioners to terminally ill cancer patients. Ensuring an adequate offer of home visits by general practitioners may help to achieve this goal.

Choosing care homes as the least preferred place to die: a cross-national survey of public preferences in seven European countries

BackgroundCare homes are increasingly becoming places where people spend the final stages of their lives and eventually die. This trend is expected to continue due to population ageing, yet little is known about public preferences regarding this setting. As part of a larger study examining preferences and priorities for end of life care, we investigated the extent to which care homes are chosen as the least preferred place of death, and the factors associated with this negative preference.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional telephone survey among 9,344 adults from random private households in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. We asked participants where they would least prefer to die in a situation of serious illness with less than one year to live. Multivariate binary logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with choosing care homes as the least preferred place of death in each country.ResultsCare homes were the most frequently mentioned least preferred place of death in the Netherlands (41.5%), Italy and Spain (both 36.7%) and the second most frequent in England (28.0%), Portugal (25.8%), Germany (23.7%) and Flanders (18.9%). Only two factors had a similar and significant effect on the least preferred place of death in more than one country. In Germany and the Netherlands those doing housework were less likely to choose care homes as their least preferred place (AOR 0.72; 95% CI:0.54-0.96 and AOR 0.68; 95% CI:0.52-0.90 respectively), while those born in the country where the survey took place were more likely to choose care homes (AOR 1.77; 95% CI:1.05-2.99 and AOR 1.74; 95% CI:1.03-2.95 respectively). Experiences of serious illness, death and dying were not associated with the preference.ConclusionsOur results suggest it might be difficult to promote care homes as a good place to die. This is an urgent research area in order to meet needs and preferences of a growing number of older people with chronic, debilitating conditions across Europe. From a research perspective and in order to allow people to be cared for and die where they wish, our findings highlight the need to build more in depth evidence on reasons underlying this negative preference.