Borgsteede Sander D, Deliens Luc, Francke Anneke L, Stalman Wim A B, Willems Dick L, van Eijk Jacques T M, van der Wal Gerrit
Department of Public and Occupational Health, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Palliat Med. 2006 Mar;20(2):63-8. doi: 10.1191/0269216306pm1112oa.
There is a lack of clear definition and clear inclusion criteria in palliative care research. The aim of this study was to describe consequences of three inclusion criteria in the build up of different study populations, studied in terms of size, number of doctor-patient contacts and demographic characteristics. General practitioners received a questionnaire for all patients who died during the second Dutch National Survey of General Practice (n=2194), to determine whether (1) patients received non-curative treatment; (2) patients received palliative care; and (3) death was expected (total response rate =73%). The criterion 'death was expected' included most patients (62%) followed by 'palliative care' (46%) and 'noncurative treatment' (39%). Similarity between the definition-based populations was fair to moderate. More 'palliative care' and 'death was expected' in patients who had cancer than 'non-curative treatment' patients. The conclusions show substantial differences in populations according to the different inclusion criteria used to select them. Future research in palliative care should acknowledge the limitations of using certain inclusion criteria and explore potential bias.
姑息治疗研究中缺乏明确的定义和清晰的纳入标准。本研究的目的是描述三种纳入标准在构建不同研究人群时的影响,这些人群从规模、医患接触次数和人口统计学特征方面进行研究。在第二次荷兰全国全科医疗调查期间死亡的所有患者(n = 2194),其全科医生收到了一份问卷,以确定(1)患者是否接受了非治愈性治疗;(2)患者是否接受了姑息治疗;以及(3)死亡是否在预期中(总回复率 = 73%)。“死亡在预期中”这一标准纳入的患者最多(62%),其次是“姑息治疗”(46%)和“非治愈性治疗”(39%)。基于定义的人群之间的相似性为中等。与“非治愈性治疗”患者相比,癌症患者中接受“姑息治疗”和“死亡在预期中”的情况更多。结论表明,根据用于选择人群的不同纳入标准,人群存在实质性差异。未来的姑息治疗研究应认识到使用某些纳入标准的局限性,并探索潜在的偏倚。