Author
Listed:
- Xhyljeta Luta
- Maud Maessen
- Matthias Egger
- Andreas E Stuck
- David Goodman
- Kerri M Clough-Gorr
Abstract
Background: Many studies have measured the intensity of end of life care. However, no summary of the measures used in the field is currently available. Objectives: To summarise features, characteristics of use and reported validity of measures used for evaluating intensity of end of life care. Methods: This was a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. We performed a comprehensive literature search in Ovid Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews and reference lists published between 1990-2014. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts and extracted data. Studies were eligible if they used a measure of end of life care intensity, defined as all quantifiable measures describing the type and intensity of medical care administered during the last year of life. Results: A total of 58 of 1590 potentially eligible studies met our inclusion criteria and were included. The most commonly reported measures were hospitalizations (n = 44), intensive care unit admissions (n = 39) and chemotherapy use (n = 27). Studies measured intensity of care in different timeframes ranging from 48 hours to 12 months. The majority of studies were conducted in cancer patients (n = 31). Only 4 studies included information on validation of the measures used. None evaluated construct validity, while 3 studies considered criterion and 1 study reported both content and criterion validity. Conclusions: This review provides a synthesis to aid in choosing intensity of end of life care measures based on their previous use but simultaneously highlights the crucial need for more validation studies and consensus in the field.
Suggested Citation
Xhyljeta Luta & Maud Maessen & Matthias Egger & Andreas E Stuck & David Goodman & Kerri M Clough-Gorr, 2015.
"Measuring Intensity of End of Life Care: A Systematic Review,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, April.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0123764
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123764
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0123764. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.