Community end-of-life care among Chinese older adults living in nursing homes

Preferences for Palliative and End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

OBJECTIVES

Understanding what matters most to patients and their caregivers is fundamental to delivering high-quality care. This systematic review aimed to characterize and appraise the evidence from discrete choice experiments eliciting preferences for palliative care.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was undertaken for publications up until August 2022. Data were synthesized narratively. Thematic analysis was applied to categorize attributes into groups. Attribute development, frequency, and relative importance were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were conducted to compare outcomes between patient and proxy respondents.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies spanning 11 countries were included; 59% of studies solely considered preferences for patients with cancer. A range of respondent groups were represented including patients (76%) and proxies (caregivers [35%], health providers [12%], and the public [18%]). A total of 117 individual attributes were extracted and thematically grouped into 8 broad categories and 21 subcategories. Clinical outcomes including quality of life, length of life, and pain control were the most frequently reported attributes, whereas attributes relating to psychosocial components were largely absent. Both patients and proxy respondents prioritized pain control over additional survival time. Nevertheless, there were differences between respondent cohorts in the emphasis on other attributes such as access to care, timely information, and low risk of adverse effects (prioritized by patients), as opposed to cost, quality, and delivery of care (prioritized by proxies).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review underscores the vital role of pain control in palliative care; in addition, it shed light on the complexity and relative strength of preferences for various aspects of care from multiple perspectives, which is useful in developing personalized, patient-centered models of care for individuals nearing the end of life.

Current Practices for Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Accounting for preference heterogeneity is a growing analytical practice in health-related discrete choice experiments (DCEs). As heterogeneity may be examined from different stakeholder perspectives with different methods, identifying the breadth of these methodological approaches and understanding the differences are major steps to provide guidance on good research practices.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to systematically summarize current practices that account for preference heterogeneity based on the published DCEs related to healthcare.

METHODS

This systematic review is part of the project led by the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) health preference research special interest group. The systematic review conducted systematic searches on the PubMed, OVID, and Web of Science databases, as well as on two recently published reviews, to identify articles. The review included health-related DCE articles published between 1 January 2000 and 30 March 2020. All the included articles also presented evidence on preference heterogeneity analysis based on either explained or unexplained factors or both.

RESULTS

Overall, 342 of the 2202 (16%) articles met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for extraction. The trend showed that analyses of preference heterogeneity increased substantially after 2010 and that such analyses mainly examined heterogeneity due to observable or unobservable factors in individual characteristics. Heterogeneity through observable differences (i.e., explained heterogeneity) is identified among 131 (40%) of the 342 articles and included one or more interactions between an attribute variable and an observable characteristic of the respondent. To capture unobserved heterogeneity (i.e., unexplained heterogeneity), the studies largely estimated either a mixed logit (n = 205, 60%) or a latent-class logit (n = 112, 32.7%) model. Few studies (n = 38, 11%) explored scale heterogeneity or heteroskedasticity.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing preference heterogeneity evidence in health-related DCEs has been found as an increasingly used practice among researchers. In recent studies, controlling for unexplained preference heterogeneity has been seen as a common practice rather than explained ones (e.g., interactions), yet a lack of providing methodological details has been observed in many studies that might impact the quality of analysis. As heterogeneity can be assessed from different stakeholder perspectives with different methods, researchers should become more technically pronounced to increase confidence in the results and improve the ability of decision makers to act on the preference evidence.

Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future

OBJECTIVES

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly advocated as a way to quantify preferences for health. However, increasing support does not necessarily result in increasing quality. Although specific reviews have been conducted in certain contexts, there exists no recent description of the general state of the science of health-related DCEs. The aim of this paper was to update prior reviews (1990-2012), to identify all health-related DCEs and to provide a description of trends, current practice and future challenges.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify health-related empirical DCEs published between 2013 and 2017. The search strategy and data extraction replicated prior reviews to allow the reporting of trends, although additional extraction fields were incorporated.

RESULTS

Of the 7877 abstracts generated, 301 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. In general, the total number of DCEs per year continued to increase, with broader areas of application and increased geographic scope. Studies reported using more sophisticated designs (e.g. D-efficient) with associated software (e.g. Ngene). The trend towards using more sophisticated econometric models also continued. However, many studies presented sophisticated methods with insufficient detail. Qualitative research methods continued to be a popular approach for identifying attributes and levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of empirical DCEs in health economics continues to grow. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details inhibits quality assessment. This may reduce decision-makers' confidence in results and their ability to act on the findings. How and when to integrate health-related DCE outcomes into decision-making remains an important area for future research.

Comparison of preferences for end-of-life care among patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers: A discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced cancer often have to make difficult decisions, such as how much to spend on moderately life-extending treatments. This and other end-of-life decisions are also influenced by their informal caregivers. Understanding the relative value that patients and their caregivers place on various aspects of end-of-life care can help clinicians tailor treatments to best meet the preferences of their patients.

AIM

To quantify willingness to pay of patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers to extend the patients' life by 1 year and to compare this result to their willingness to pay for other end-of-life improvements.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey using a discrete choice experiment.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 211 patients with stage IV cancer and their informal caregivers.

RESULTS

The willingness to pay of patients to extend their life by 1 year (S$18,570; 95% confidence interval: S$6687-S$30,542) was not statistically different from their willingness to pay to avoid severe pain (S$22,199; S$11,648-S$32,450), to die at home (S$31,256; S$21,249-S$41,391), not be a burden on family and friends (S$4051; -S$3543 to S$11,568), or to receive a high-quality health-care experience (S$16,191; S$9266-S$23,037). Consistent with our hypothesis, caregivers had a greater willingness to pay than patients to extend life (S$61,368; S$37,030-S$86,210) and for most other end-of-life improvements.

CONCLUSION

Results highlight the importance of pain management, supporting home deaths, and addressing other end-of-life concerns, in addition to efforts to extend life. Differences in willingness to pay of patients and caregivers suggest the need for eliciting patient preferences during treatment decision making as opposed to relying on caregiver input.

End-of-life care research in Hong Kong: A systematic review of peer-reviewed publications

Objective:

This systematic review aimed to examine end-of-life (EoL) care research undertaken in an Eastern cultural context—Hong Kong—with the hope of better informing EoL care professionals and policy makers and providing lessons for other countries or areas that share similar EoL care challenges.

Method:

Eight databases were searched from their respective inception through to August of 2014. All of the resulting studies conducted in Hong Kong and relevant to EoL care or palliative care were examined. The included studies were assessed with respect to study design, care settings, participants, research themes, and major findings.

Results:

Some 107 publications published between 1991 and 2014 were identified. These studies were undertaken at a range of places by different professionals. Of the total, 44 were led by physicians, 36 by nurses, 17 by social workers, and 10 by other professionals. Participants included both inpatients and outpatients with different illnesses, nursing home residents, older community-dwelling adults, deceased individuals, care staff, and informal caregivers. A total of 13 research themes were identified: (1) attitudes to or perceptions of death and dying; (2) utilization of healthcare services, (3) physical symptoms or medical problems; (4) death anxiety or mental health issues; (5) quality of life; (6) advance directives or advance care planning; (7) supportive care needs, (8) decision making; (9) spirituality; (10) cost-effectiveness or utility studies; (11) care professionals' education and training; (12) informal caregivers' perceptions and experience; and (13) scale development or validation.

Significance of results:

While there has been a wide and diverse range of research activities in Hong Kong, EoL care services at primary care settings should be strengthened. Some priority areas for further research are recommended.