Factors influencing cancer patients' choice of end-of-life care place

13Citations
Citations of this article
70Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: It is important for cancer patients to receive end-of-life care at the desired place. Objective: To identify issues in selection of place for end-of-life care of cancer patients to realize their optimal survivorship. Design and Setting: Between September 2015 and January 2016, a questionnaire consisting of 33 items, including end-of-life care place preferences, was administered to cancer patients who attended three university hospitals in Japan. Results: A total of 971 questionnaires were collected (response rate, 88.4%). Fifty-eight percent of patients preferred to stay at home to receive end-of-life care. In contrast, more than 80% of patients did not know the details of healthcare services. The factors significantly associated with patients' choice for place of end-of-life care at home were "male gender" (odds ratio [OR] = 1.43, p = 0.030), "living in a one-person household" (OR = 0.21, p < 0.001), "feeling close to friends" (OR = 0.94, p = 0.049), "thinking that the family is burdened" (OR = 0.55, p < 0.001), "thinking that pain is controllable at home" (OR = 1.39, p < 0.001), and "thinking that society should establish a system of home palliative care" (OR = 1.93, p < 0.001). Conclusions: This study identified six factors influencing the selection of a place for end-of-life care. Most patients have a desire for a social system that allows end-of-life care at home where they can live with their family, but have anxiety about treatment to deal with symptom change, with concern about burden on their family. These issues should be addressed in the future.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Natsume, M., Watanabe, K., Matsumoto, S., Naruge, D., Hayashi, K., Furuse, J., … Seki, N. (2018). Factors influencing cancer patients’ choice of end-of-life care place. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 21(6), 751–765. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2017.0481

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free