Suppr超能文献

社会因素会影响患者的死亡地点吗:对英格兰十年癌症死亡情况的分析

Do social factors affect where patients die: an analysis of 10 years of cancer deaths in England.

作者信息

Higginson I J, Jarman B, Astin P, Dolan S

机构信息

Department of Palliative Care and Policy, King's College School of Medicine & Dentistry and St Christopher's Hospice, Sydenham, London.

出版信息

J Public Health Med. 1999 Mar;21(1):22-8. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/21.1.22.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This study investigated whether indices of social deprivation were related to the proportion of cancer patients who died at home.

METHODS

Data were derived from death registrations for all cancer deaths 1985-1994 in England. Two indices of deprivation (Underprivileged Area Score (UPA), or Jarman, and Townsend scores) were calculated for each electoral ward; 1991 Census data were used. The scores use combinations of variables, including the percentage in overcrowded homes, the percentage of elderly people living alone, the percentage of one-parent families, etc. A high score indicates more deprivation. The main outcome measures were the proportion (in five and ten year averages) of cancer deaths which occurred at home, calculated for every electoral ward (with populations usually ranging from 5000 to 11,000). Spearman rho was used to test for correlations between the proportion of cancer deaths at home and deprivation score. Electoral wards were categorized by deprivation score into three groups of equal size and analysed over 10 years. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the relative association of different patient based and electoral ward variables with cancer death at home. p < 0.05 (two-tailed) was taken as significant.

RESULTS

There were over 1.3 million death registrations from cancer in the 10 years. The proportion who died at home was 0.27, in hospital 0.47, and other setting 0.26. There were wide variations (0.05-0.75) in the proportion of people who died at home in different electoral wards. Small inverse correlations were found between the percentage who died at home and the UPA (-0.35; p < 0.001) and Townsend (-0.26; p < 0.001) scores. The correlations were greatest in North Thames (-0.63, UPA) and smallest in West Midlands (-0.20, UPA). The proportion of home deaths for the different bands of deprivation were: 0.30 (low deprivation), 0.27 (middle deprivation) and 0.24 (high deprivation). Plotting the trends over 10 years suggests no change in this relationship. Multiple regression analysis predicted several ward and patient characteristics and accounted for 30 per cent of the variation. Increased age (patient variable), Jarman score and ethnic minorities (both ward variables) were associated with fewer patients dying at home. Being male and having cancer of the digestive organs were associated with home death.

CONCLUSION

There are wide variations in the percentage of cancer deaths at home in different electoral wards. Social factors are inversely correlated with home cancer death, and may explain part of this variation. Home care in deprived areas may be especially difficult to achieve.

摘要

背景

本研究调查了社会剥夺指数是否与在家中死亡的癌症患者比例相关。

方法

数据来源于1985 - 1994年英格兰所有癌症死亡的死亡登记。为每个选区计算了两个剥夺指数(贫困地区得分(UPA)或贾曼指数以及汤森指数);使用了1991年人口普查数据。这些得分使用了包括过度拥挤家庭中的百分比、独居老年人的百分比、单亲家庭的百分比等变量的组合。高分表示剥夺程度更高。主要结局指标是为每个选区(人口通常在5000至11000之间)计算的(五年和十年平均值)在家中发生的癌症死亡比例。使用斯皮尔曼等级相关系数来检验在家中癌症死亡比例与剥夺得分之间的相关性。选区按剥夺得分分为大小相等的三组,并进行了10年的分析。使用多变量分析来确定不同的基于患者和选区的变量与在家中癌症死亡的相对关联。p < 0.05(双侧)被视为具有显著性。

结果

在这10年中有超过130万例癌症死亡登记。在家中死亡的比例为0.27,在医院死亡的比例为0.47,在其他场所死亡的比例为0.26。不同选区在家中死亡的人的比例有很大差异(0.05 - 0.75)。在家中死亡的百分比与UPA(-0.35;p < 0.001)和汤森指数(-0.26;p < 0.001)得分之间存在小的负相关。这种相关性在北泰晤士地区最大(-0.63,UPA),在西米德兰兹地区最小(-0.20,UPA)。不同剥夺程度组的在家死亡比例分别为:0.30(低剥夺)、0.27(中等剥夺)和0.24(高剥夺)。绘制10年的趋势图表明这种关系没有变化。多元回归分析预测了几个选区和患者特征,并解释了30%的变异。年龄增加(患者变量)、贾曼指数得分和少数民族(均为选区变量)与在家中死亡的患者较少相关。男性和患有消化器官癌症与在家中死亡相关。

结论

不同选区在家中癌症死亡的百分比有很大差异。社会因素与在家中癌症死亡呈负相关,并且可能解释了这种变异的一部分。在贫困地区提供家庭护理可能特别难以实现。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验