• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Which hospice patients with cancer are able to die in the setting of their choice? Results of a retrospective cohort study.哪些癌症终末期患者能够在他们选择的环境中离世?一项回顾性队列研究的结果。
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Aug 1;30(22):2783-7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.41.5711. Epub 2012 Jun 25.
2
Are advance directives associated with better hospice care?预先指示与更好的临终关怀有关吗?
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014 Jun;62(6):1091-6. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12851. Epub 2014 May 22.
3
Predictors of the final place of care of patients with advanced cancer receiving integrated home-based palliative care: a retrospective cohort study.接受综合家庭姑息治疗的晚期癌症患者最终护理地点的预测因素:一项回顾性队列研究。
BMC Palliat Care. 2021 Oct 18;20(1):164. doi: 10.1186/s12904-021-00865-5.
4
Hospice assist at home: does the integration of hospice care in primary healthcare support patients to die in their preferred location - A retrospective cross-sectional evaluation study.居家临终关怀:初级医疗保健中临终关怀的整合是否有助于支持患者在其首选地点离世——一项回顾性横断面评估研究。
Palliat Med. 2016 Jun;30(6):580-6. doi: 10.1177/0269216315626353. Epub 2016 Jan 26.
5
Place of death of children and young adults with a life-limiting condition in England: a retrospective cohort study.英格兰有生命限制条件的儿童和青年的死亡地点:一项回顾性队列研究。
Arch Dis Child. 2021 Jul 19;106(8):780-785. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2020-319700.
6
Social and clinical determinants of preferences and their achievement at the end of life: prospective cohort study of older adults receiving palliative care in three countries.社会和临床决定因素对生命终末期偏好及其实现的影响:对三个国家接受姑息治疗的老年患者的前瞻性队列研究。
BMC Geriatr. 2017 Nov 23;17(1):271. doi: 10.1186/s12877-017-0648-4.
7
Clinical and Socio-Demographic Predictors of Home Hospice Patients Dying at Home: A Retrospective Analysis of Hospice Care Association's Database in Singapore.新加坡临终关怀患者在家中离世的临床及社会人口学预测因素:对新加坡临终关怀护理协会数据库的回顾性分析
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017 Jun;53(6):1035-1041. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.01.008. Epub 2017 Feb 11.
8
Impact of a hospice rapid response service on preferred place of death, and costs.临终关怀快速反应服务对死亡首选地点及成本的影响。
BMC Palliat Care. 2015 Dec 23;14:75. doi: 10.1186/s12904-015-0065-4.
9
Increasing inpatient hospice use versus patient preferences in the USA: are patients able to die in the setting of their choice?在美国,住院临终关怀服务的使用增加与患者偏好相悖:患者能够在他们选择的环境中离世吗?
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2017 Mar;7(1):46-52. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2013-000599. Epub 2014 Nov 13.
10
Place of Death of Individuals with Terminal Cancer: New Insights from Medicare Hospice Place-of-Service Codes.晚期癌症患者的死亡地点:医疗保险临终关怀服务地点代码带来的新见解
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016 Sep;64(9):1815-22. doi: 10.1111/jgs.14269. Epub 2016 Aug 18.

引用本文的文献

1
Congruence between preferred and actual place of death and its association with quality of death and dying in advanced cancer patients: A nationwide survey in Japan.晚期癌症患者死亡的首选地点与实际地点的一致性及其与死亡质量和临终关怀的关联:日本全国性调查
PLoS One. 2025 Jul 7;20(7):e0320541. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320541. eCollection 2025.
2
Preferred and Actual Places of Death Among Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Single-centre Cohort Study in Japan.晚期癌症患者的首选和实际死亡地点:日本的一项单中心队列研究。
Indian J Palliat Care. 2024 Jul-Sep;30(3):268-274. doi: 10.25259/IJPC_133_2024. Epub 2024 Aug 23.
3
EOLinPLACE: an international research project to reform the way dying places are classified and understood.EOLinPLACE:一项旨在改革临终场所分类和理解方式的国际研究项目。
Palliat Care Soc Pract. 2024 Feb 12;18:26323524231222498. doi: 10.1177/26323524231222498. eCollection 2024.
4
Don't Throw the Baby Out With the Bathwater: Meta-Analysis of Advance Care Planning and End-of-life Cancer Care.切勿将婴儿和洗澡水一起倒掉:预先医疗照护计划和癌症临终照护的荟萃分析。
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2023 Jun;65(6):e715-e743. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2023.02.003. Epub 2023 Feb 9.
5
Preferred place of death and end-of-life care for adult cancer patients in Iran: A cross-sectional study.伊朗成年癌症患者的首选死亡地点及临终关怀:一项横断面研究。
Front Oncol. 2022 Aug 3;12:911397. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.911397. eCollection 2022.
6
Factors Related to Family Caregivers' Readiness for the Hospital Discharge of Advanced Cancer Patients.与晚期癌症患者出院相关的家庭照护者准备情况的因素。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jul 1;19(13):8097. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19138097.
7
Preferred Place of Death in Adult Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.成年癌症患者的首选死亡地点:一项系统评价与荟萃分析
Front Psychol. 2021 Aug 27;12:704590. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.704590. eCollection 2021.
8
Hospice Care Experiences Among Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers.癌症患者及其照顾者的临终关怀经历。
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Apr;36(4):961-969. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06490-x. Epub 2021 Jan 19.
9
Socioeconomic inequalities in the place of death in urban small areas of three Mediterranean cities.城市小区域内死亡地点的社会经济不平等:三个地中海城市的比较
Int J Equity Health. 2020 Dec 3;19(1):214. doi: 10.1186/s12939-020-01324-y.
10
Palliative and end-of-life care in glioblastoma: defining and measuring opportunities to improve care.胶质母细胞瘤的姑息治疗和临终关怀:定义并衡量改善护理的机会
Neurooncol Pract. 2017 Sep;4(3):182-188. doi: 10.1093/nop/npw022. Epub 2016 Sep 27.

本文引用的文献

1
Can this patient be discharged home? Factors associated with at-home death among patients with cancer.这位患者可以出院回家吗?癌症患者在家中死亡的相关因素。
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Mar 20;29(9):1159-67. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.6752. Epub 2011 Feb 22.
2
Reporting methods in studies developing prognostic models in cancer: a review.癌症预后模型研究中的报告方法:综述。
BMC Med. 2010 Mar 30;8:20. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-20.
3
Which patients with cancer die at home? A study of six European countries using death certificate data.哪些癌症患者在家中死亡?使用死亡证明数据的六个欧洲国家的研究。
J Clin Oncol. 2010 May 1;28(13):2267-73. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.2850. Epub 2010 Mar 29.
4
Associations between home death and GP involvement in palliative cancer care.居家死亡与全科医生参与癌症姑息治疗之间的关联。
Br J Gen Pract. 2009 Sep;59(566):671-7. doi: 10.3399/bjgp09X454133.
5
General practitioner awareness of preferred place of death and correlates of dying in a preferred place: a nationwide mortality follow-back study in the Netherlands.全科医生对首选死亡地点的认知及其与首选地点死亡的相关性:荷兰全国死亡率随访研究。
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009 Oct;38(4):568-77. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2008.12.007. Epub 2009 Aug 18.
6
Length of survival in hospice for cancer patients referred from a comprehensive cancer center.从综合癌症中心转诊而来的癌症患者在临终关怀机构的生存时长。
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2009 Aug-Sep;26(4):281-7. doi: 10.1177/1049909109333928. Epub 2009 Apr 8.
7
Prognosis and prognostic research: Developing a prognostic model.预后与预后研究:构建预后模型
BMJ. 2009 Mar 31;338:b604. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b604.
8
Predicting survival with the Palliative Performance Scale in a minority-serving hospice and palliative care program.在一个为少数族裔服务的临终关怀与姑息治疗项目中,使用姑息治疗表现量表预测生存率。
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009 Apr;37(4):642-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2008.03.023. Epub 2008 Sep 26.
9
Actual and preferred place of death of cancer patients. Results from the Italian survey of the dying of cancer (ISDOC).癌症患者的实际和理想死亡地点。意大利癌症死亡情况调查(ISDOC)的结果。
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006 May;60(5):412-6. doi: 10.1136/jech.2005.043646.
10
Factors influencing death at home in terminally ill patients with cancer: systematic review.影响癌症晚期患者在家中死亡的因素:系统评价
BMJ. 2006 Mar 4;332(7540):515-21. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38740.614954.55. Epub 2006 Feb 8.

哪些癌症终末期患者能够在他们选择的环境中离世?一项回顾性队列研究的结果。

Which hospice patients with cancer are able to die in the setting of their choice? Results of a retrospective cohort study.

机构信息

University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia , PA 19104, USA.

出版信息

J Clin Oncol. 2012 Aug 1;30(22):2783-7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.41.5711. Epub 2012 Jun 25.

DOI:10.1200/JCO.2011.41.5711
PMID:22734023
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3402887/
Abstract

PURPOSE

To determine which hospice patients with cancer prefer to die at home and to define factors associated with an increased likelihood of dying at home.

METHODS

An electronic health record-based retrospective cohort study was conducted in three hospice programs in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Main measures included preferred versus actual site of death.

RESULTS

Of 7,391 patients, preferences regarding place of death were determined at admission for 5,837 (79%). After adjusting for other characteristics, patients who preferred to die at home were more likely to die at home (adjusted proportions, 56.5% v 37.0%; odds ratio [OR], 2.21; 95% CI, 1.77 to 2.76). Among those patients (n = 3,152) who preferred to die at home, in a multivariable logistic regression model, patients were more likely to die at home if they had at least one visit per day in the first 4 days of hospice care (adjusted proportions, 61% v 54%; OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.41), if they were married (63% v 54%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.44), and if they had an advance directive (65% v 50%; OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.54 to 2.65). Patients with moderate or severe pain were less likely to die at home (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.64), as were patients with better functional status (higher Palliative Performance Scale score: < 40, 64.8%; 40 to 70, 50.2%; OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.93; > 70, 40.5%; OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.82).

CONCLUSION

Increased hospice visit frequency may increase the likelihood of patients being able to die in the setting of their choice.

摘要

目的

确定哪些癌症临终关怀患者更愿意在家中离世,并确定与增加在家中离世可能性相关的因素。

方法

本研究在佛罗里达州、宾夕法尼亚州和威斯康星州的三个临终关怀项目中开展了一项基于电子病历的回顾性队列研究。主要测量指标包括患者对死亡地点的偏好与实际死亡地点。

结果

在 7391 名患者中,有 5837 名(79%)在入院时确定了对死亡地点的偏好。在调整其他特征后,更倾向于在家中离世的患者在家中离世的可能性更高(调整后的比例,56.5%比 37.0%;优势比[OR],2.21;95%置信区间[CI],1.77 至 2.76)。在那些更倾向于在家中离世的患者(n=3152)中,在多变量逻辑回归模型中,如果患者在临终关怀护理的前 4 天内每天至少接受一次访视(调整后的比例,61%比 54%;OR,1.23;95%CI,1.07 至 1.41)、已婚(63%比 54%;OR,1.35;95%CI,1.10 至 1.44)或有预先指示(65%比 50%;OR,2.11;95%CI,1.54 至 2.65),他们更有可能在家中离世。中度或重度疼痛患者在家中离世的可能性较低(OR,0.56;95%CI,0.45 至 0.64),功能状态较好的患者(较高的姑息治疗表现量表评分:<40,64.8%;40 至 70,50.2%;OR,0.79;95%CI,0.67 至 0.93;>70,40.5%;OR,0.53;95%CI,0.35 至 0.82)也是如此。

结论

增加临终关怀访视频率可能会增加患者按照自己的意愿在家中离世的可能性。