4.5 Article

Impact of age on end-of-life care for adult Taiwanese cancer decedents, 2001-2006

Journal

PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages 80-88

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0269216311406989

Keywords

Age factors; cancer; elderly; end-of-life care; health services accessibility; palliative care

Funding

  1. Bureau of Health Promotion, Department of Health, Taiwan, R.O.C. [DOH96-HP-1510]
  2. National Health Research Institute [NHRI-EX99-9906PI]
  3. National Science Council [NSC 98-2314-B-182-052]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: With increasing patient age in Western countries, evidence indicates a pervasive pattern of decreasing healthcare expenditures and less aggressive medical care, including end-of-life (EOL) care. However, the impact of age on EOL care for Asian cancer patients has not been investigated. Purpose: To explore how healthcare use at EOL varies by age among adult Taiwanese cancer patients. Methods: Retrospective cohort study using administrative data among 203,743 Taiwanese cancer decedents, 2001-2006. Age was categorized as 18-64, 65-74, 75-84, and >= 85 years. Results: Elderly (>= 65 years) Taiwanese cancer patients were significantly less likely than those 18-64 years to receive aggressive treatment in their last month of life, including chemotherapy, > 1 emergency room visits, > 1 hospital admissions, > 14 days of hospitalization, hospital death, intensive care unit admission, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, intubation, and mechanical ventilation. However, they were significantly more likely to receive hospice care in their last year of life. Conclusion: Elderly Taiwanese cancer patients at EOL received less chemotherapy, less aggressive management of health crises associated with the dying process, and fewer life-extending treatments, but they were more likely to receive hospice care in their last year and to achieve the culturally highly valued goal of dying at home.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available