Skip to main content

Valuing End-of-Life Care for Older People with Advanced Cancer: Is Dying at Home Important?

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research volume 14, pages 803–813 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Most health care systems are facing the challenge of providing health services to support the increasing numbers of older people with chronic life-limiting conditions at the end of life. Many policies focus primarily on increasing the proportion of deaths at home.

Objectives

This study aims to investigate preferences for care throughout the latter stages of a life-limiting illness, particularly the importance of location of care, location of death, and the use of life-sustaining measures. It focuses on preferences for the care of an older person with advanced cancer in the last 3 weeks of life.

Methods

A survey using discrete choice experiment (DCE) methods was completed online by a general population sample of 1548 Australians aged 45 years and over. The experiment included 12 attributes, and each respondent completed 11 choice sets. Analysis was by a mixed logit model and latent class analysis (LCA).

Results

The most important attributes influencing care preferences were cost, patient anxiety, pain control, and carer stress (relative importance scores 0.21, 0.19, 0.14, and 0.14, respectively), with less importance given to place of care and place of death (relative importance scores 0.03 and 0.01). The model predicted that 42% would consider receiving most care in hospital better than at home (58%) holding the levels of other attributes constant across the alternatives, while 42% would consider death in hospital better than at home (58%). Three population segments with different preferences were identified by the LCA, the largest (46.5%) prioritised how the patient and carer felt as well as the pain control achieved, the next largest (28.1%) prioritised cost, and the smallest segment (25.4%) prioritised a single room when an inpatient.

Conclusions

This study shows that investment in services to support people at the end of life would be better targeted toward programmes that improve patient and carer wellbeing irrespective of the location of care and death.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 49.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Blakely T, Atkinson J, Kvizhinadze G, Nghiem N, McLeod H, Wilson N. Health system costs by sex, age and proximity to death, and implications for estimation of future expenditure. N Z Med J. 2014;127(1393):12–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chastek B, Harley C, Kallich J, Newcomer L, Paoli CJ, Teitelbaum AH. Health care costs for patients with cancer at the end of life. J Oncol Pract. 2012;8(6S):75s–80s. https://doi.org/10.1200/jop.2011.000469.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. French EB, McCauley J, Aragon M, Bakx P, Chalkley M, Chen SH, et al. End-of-life medical spending in last twelve months of life is lower than previously reported. Health Aff. 2017;36(7):1211–7. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hoverman JR, Mann BB, Phu S, Nelson P, Hayes JE, Taniguchi CB, et al. Hospice or hospital: the costs of dying of cancer in the oncology care model. Palliat Med Rep. 2020;1(1):92–6. https://doi.org/10.1089/pmr.2020.0023.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Kardamanidis K, Lim K, Da Cunha C, Taylor L, Jorm L. Hospital costs of older people in New South Wales in the last year of life. Med J Aust. 2007;187(7):383–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Moorin RE, Holman CDAJ. The cost of in-patient care in Western Australia in the last years of life: a population-based data linkage study. Health Policy. 2008;85(3):380–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.08.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Reeve R, Srasuebkul P, Langton JM, Haas M, Viney R, Pearson S-A, et al. Health care use and costs at the end of life: a comparison of elderly Australian decedents with and without a cancer history. BMC Palliat Care. 2018;17(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-017-0213-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hung P, Hsu SH, Wang S-Y. Associations between end-of-life expenditures and hospice stay length vary by clinical condition and expenditure duration. Value Health. 2020;23(6):697–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.01.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Palliative Care Australia, KPMG. Investing to save: the economics of increased investment in palliative care in Australia. Canberra: Palliative Care Australia. 2020. https://palliativecare.org.au/kpmg-palliativecare-economic-report.

  10. Swerissen H, Duckett S. Dying well. Melbourne: Grattan Institute. 2014. https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/815-dying-well.pdf.

  11. Wright AA, Zhang B, Keating NL, Weeks JC, Prigerson HG. Associations between palliative chemotherapy and adult cancer patients’ end of life care and place of death: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2014;348:g1219. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1219.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Gomes B, Calanzani N, Gysels M, Hall S, Higginson I. Heterogeneity and changes in preferences for dying at home: a systematic review. BMC Palliat Care. 2013;12(1):7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Agar M, Currow DC, Shelby-James TM, Plummer J, Sanderson C, Abernethy AP. Preference for place of care and place of death in palliative care: are these different questions? Palliat Med. 2008;22(7):787–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216308092287.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Higginson IJ, Daveson BA, Morrison RS, Yi D, Meier D, Smith M, et al. 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. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17(1):271. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-017-0648-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Eagar K, Clapham SP, Allingham SF. Palliative care is effective: but hospital symptom outcomes superior. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2020;10(2):186. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2018-001534.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McCaffrey N, Bradley S, Ratcliffe J, Currow DC. What aspects of quality of life are important from palliative care patients’ perspectives? A systematic review of qualitative research. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2016;52(2):318-28.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2016.02.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Virdun C, Luckett T, Davidson PM, Phillips J. Dying in the hospital setting: a systematic review of quantitative studies identifying the elements of end-of-life care that patients and their families rank as being most important. Palliat Med. 2015;29(9):774–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216315583032.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Gallo JJ, Straton JB, Klag MJ, Meoni LA, Sulmasy DP, Wang NY, et al. Life-sustaining treatments: what do physicians want and do they express their wishes to others? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(7):961–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kissane LA, Ikeda B, Akizuki R, Nozaki S, Yoshimura K, Ikegami N. End-of-life preferences of the general public: results from a Japanese national survey. Health Policy. 2015;119(11):1472–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.04.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Finkelstein E, Malhotra C, Chay J, Ozdemir S, Chopra A, Kanesvaran R. Impact of treatment subsidies and cash payouts on treatment choices at the end of life. Value Health. 2016;19(6):788–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Waller A, Sanson-Fisher R, Brown SD, Wall L, Walsh J. Quality versus quantity in end-of-life choices of cancer patients and support persons: a discrete choice experiment. Support Care Cancer. 2018;26(10):3593–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4226-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Finkelstein EA, Bilger M, Flynn TN, Malhotra C. Preferences for end-of-life care among community-dwelling older adults and patients with advanced cancer: a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy. 2015;119(11):1482–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.09.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Malhotra C, Bundoc FG, Sim D, Jaufeerally FR, Finkelstein EA. Instability in preference for place of death among patients with symptoms of advanced heart failure. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021;22(349):e29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2020.05.030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 4430.0—Disability, ageing and carers, Australia: summary of findings, 2015. Canberra: ABS; 2016. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4430.0main+features12015.

  25. Hall J, Kenny P, Hossain I, Street DJ, Knox SA. Providing informal care in terminal illness: an analysis of preferences for support using a discrete choice experiment. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(6):731–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zapart S, Kenny P, Hall J, Servis B, Wiley S. Home-based palliative care in Sydney, Australia: the carer’s perspective on the provision of informal care. Health Soc Care Commun. 2007;15(2):97–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2006.00665.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jonker MF, Donkers B, de Bekker-Grob E, Stolk EA. Attribute level overlap (and color coding) can reduce task complexity, improve choice consistency, and decrease the dropout rate in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2019;28(3):350–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3846.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mulhern B, Norman R, Shah K, Bansback N, Longworth L, Viney R. How should discrete choice experiments with duration choice sets be presented for the valuation of health states? Med Decis Mak. 2018;38(3):306–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x17738754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Norman R, Viney R, Aaronson NK, Brazier JE, Cella D, Costa DS, et al. Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):637–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Street DJ, Burgess L. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods Hoboken. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2007.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Train K. Discrete choice methods with simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2003.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Greene WH, Hensher DA. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transp Res Part B Methodol. 2003;37(8):681–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(02)00046-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. 2015. http://www.R-project.org/.

  34. Sarrias M, Daziano R. Multinomial logit models with continuous and discrete individual heterogeneity in R: the gmnl package. J Stat Softw. 2017;79(2):46. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v079.i02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yoo HI. lclogit2: an enhanced command to fit latent class conditional logit models. Stata J. 2020;20(2):405–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X20931003.

  36. Productivity Commission. Introducing Competition and Informed User Choice into Human Services: Reforms to Human Services. Canberra2017. Report No.: Report No. 85. https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/human-services/reforms/report.

  37. Foreman LM, Hunt RW, Luke CG, Roder DM. Factors predictive of preferred place of death in the general population of South Australia. Palliat Med. 2006;20(4):447–53. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269216306pm1149oa.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Meg Brassil, Imelda Gilmore, Bev Noble, and Noelene Trotter, who provided invaluable advice and assistance with the DCE survey development, drawing on personal experience as end-of-life family carers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, PO Box 123, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia

    Patricia Kenny, Deborah J. Street & Jane Hall

  2. Improving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care through Clinical Research and Translation (IMPACCT), University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Meera Agar & Jane Phillips

Authors
  1. Patricia Kenny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deborah J. Street
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jane Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Meera Agar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jane Phillips
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia Kenny.

Ethics declarations

Funding/support

This study was supported by a National Health & Medical Research Council project grant (ID 1159202).

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Availability of data and material

Data are not publicly available due to the current ethics approval. The authors will consider requests for data access and may submit an ethics amendment application if appropriate.

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the University of Technology Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (UTS HREC REF NO. ETH19-3313).

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and design of the work, obtaining funding, and interpretation of the results. DS devised the designed experiment for the DCE, and PK analysed the data and drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to critical revision of the manuscript and approved the final version.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kenny, P., Street, D.J., Hall, J. et al. Valuing End-of-Life Care for Older People with Advanced Cancer: Is Dying at Home Important?. Patient 14, 803–813 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00517-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00517-z