Suppr超能文献

同居状态对癌症患者接受专科姑息治疗的入院影响:来自丹麦姑息治疗数据库的全国性研究。

Cohabitation Status Influenced Admittance to Specialized Palliative Care for Cancer Patients: A Nationwide Study from the Danish Palliative Care Database.

机构信息

1 Research Unit, Department of Palliative Medicine, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

2 National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.

出版信息

J Palliat Med. 2019 Feb;22(2):164-172. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2018.0201. Epub 2018 Nov 7.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The utilization of the health care system varies in relation to cohabitation status, but conflicting results have been found in studies investigating the association in relation to specialized palliative care (SPC).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between cohabitation status and admittance to SPC; to establish whether this association differed between hospital-based palliative care team/units (mainly outpatient/home care) and hospice (mainly inpatient care).

DESIGN

A nationwide study based on the Danish Palliative Care Database, which is linked with additional registers.

MEASUREMENTS

The study population included all patients dying from cancer in Denmark between 2010 and 2012 (n = 44,480). The associations were investigated using logistic regression analysis adjusted for sex, age, diagnosis, and geography and standardized absolute prevalences.

RESULTS

Comparison with cohabiting patients showed that overall admittance to SPC was lowest among patients who were widows/widowers (odds ratio [OR] = 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81-0.91) and those who had never married (OR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.68-0.80). Patients living alone were more likely to be admitted to a hospice [e.g., divorced OR = 1.41 (95% CI: 1.31-1.52)] than to a hospital-based palliative care team/unit [e.g., never married OR = 0.64 (95% CI: 0.59-0.70)] compared with cohabiting patients. Standardized prevalences of overall admittance to SPC showed a similar pattern, for example, admittance was highest (41%) for patients cohabiting and lowest (30%) for patients who had never married.

CONCLUSION

Cohabiting individuals were favored in admittance to SPC. Compared with cohabiting patients it is unlikely that patients living alone have lower needs for SPC: results point toward inequity in admittance to specialist health care, a problem that should be addressed.

摘要

背景

医疗保健系统的利用与同居状况有关,但在研究专门的姑息治疗(SPC)与同居状况的关联时,得出的结果却相互矛盾。

目的

调查同居状况与 SPC 入院之间的关联;确定这种关联在基于医院的姑息治疗团队/单位(主要是门诊/家庭护理)和临终关怀(主要是住院护理)之间是否存在差异。

设计

一项基于丹麦姑息治疗数据库的全国性研究,该数据库与其他登记处相链接。

测量

研究人群包括 2010 年至 2012 年期间在丹麦死于癌症的所有患者(n=44480)。使用逻辑回归分析调整性别、年龄、诊断和地理位置,并标准化绝对流行率来评估关联。

结果

与同居患者相比,总体而言,寡居/鳏居患者(比值比[OR]=0.86;95%置信区间[CI]:0.81-0.91)和从未结婚的患者(OR=0.74;95% CI:0.68-0.80)接受 SPC 的比例最低。独居患者更有可能被送往临终关怀机构[例如,离婚患者 OR=1.41(95% CI:1.31-1.52)],而不是医院姑息治疗团队/单位[例如,从未结婚患者 OR=0.64(95% CI:0.59-0.70)]。总体上接受 SPC 的标准化流行率也呈现出类似的模式,例如,与同居患者相比,同居患者的接受率最高(41%),从未结婚患者的接受率最低(30%)。

结论

同居者更有可能接受 SPC。与同居患者相比,独居患者不太可能对 SPC 的需求较低:结果表明在接受专科医疗保健方面存在不平等,这是一个需要解决的问题。

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