Home › Research › End-of-life care
Understanding the factors associated with patients with dementia achieving their preferred place of death: a retrospective cohort study
Wiggins N, Droney J, Mohammed K, Riley J, Sleeman KE.. Age and ageing, 2019-05-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background dying in one's preferred place is a quality marker for end-of-life care. Little is known about preferred place of death, or the factors associated with achieving this, for people with dementia. Aims to understand preferences for place of death among people with dementia; to identify factors associated with achieving these preferences. Population adults with a diagnosis of dementia who died between December 2015 and March 2017 and who were registered on Coordinate My Care, an Electronic Palliative Care Coordination System. Design retrospective cohort study. Analysis multivariable logistic regression investigated factors associated with achieving preferred place of death. Results we identified 1,047 people who died with dementia; information on preferred and actual place of death was available for 803. Preferred place of death was most commonly care home (58.8%, n = 472) or home (39.0%, n = 313). Overall 83.7% (n = 672) died in their preferred place. Dying in the preferred place was more likely for those most functionally impaired (OR 1.82 95% CI 1.06-3.13), and with a ceiling of treatment of 'symptomatic relief only' (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.37-5.14). It was less likely for people with a primary diagnosis of cancer (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.97), those who were 'for' cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16-0.62) and those whose record was created longer before death (51-250 days (ref <50 days) OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38-0.94). Conclusions most people with dementia want to die in a care home or at home. Achieving this is more likely where goals of treatment are symptomatic relief only, indicating the importance of advance care planning.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wiggins, N., Droney, J., Mohammed, K., Riley, J., & Sleeman, K. E. (2019). Understanding the factors associated with patients with dementia achieving their preferred place of death: a retrospective cohort study. Age and ageing. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afz015
Vancouver
Wiggins N, Droney J, Mohammed K, Riley J, Sleeman KE. Understanding the factors associated with patients with dementia achieving their preferred place of death: a retrospective cohort study. Age and ageing. 2019. doi:10.1093/ageing/afz015. PMID: 30806452.
BibTeX
@article{wiggins2019-30806452,
author = {Wiggins, N. and Droney, J. and Mohammed, K. and Riley, J. and Sleeman, K. E.},
title = {{Understanding the factors associated with patients with dementia achieving their preferred place of death: a retrospective cohort study}},
journal = {Age and ageing},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1093/ageing/afz015},
pmid = {30806452},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afz015}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Little is known about preferred place of death, or the factors associated with achieving this, for people with dementia.
- Aims to understand preferences for place of death among people with dementia; to identify factors associated with achieving these preferences.
- Analysis multivariable logistic regression investigated factors associated with achieving preferred place of death.
- Results we identified 1,047 people who died with dementia; information on preferred and actual place of death was available for 803.
- Overall 83.7% (n = 672) died in their preferred place.
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants472
- Effect size58.8%; 39.0%; 83.7%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 69/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 69 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Age and ageing) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 472 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30806452) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 40 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 69 out of 100. |
| Total | 69 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in End-of-life care
Also tagged “care”
996 studies in the library carry the topic tag “care”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 996 tagged studies.