Search

Palliative day care (PDC) provides individualized care to meet patients' needs and preferences and has posed problems for economic evaluation. Current methods are limited in their ability to capture relevant outcomes. The choice experiment elicits preferences for multiple aspects of care rather than a single outcome. A choice experiment was undertaken at four centers in England. A random effects probit model was used. Interaction terms relating to patient and service characteristics were explored. Seventy-nine patients participated. All characteristics of PDC except bathing and hairdressing were significant (P < 0.001). Access to specialist therapies was three times as important as medical support and twice as important as staying all day. Interaction terms were not significant, except for age and preference for specialist therapies, although the sample may not have been adequate to detect differences. Choice experiments provided useful insights by quantifying preferences for services, providing an alternative to cost-effectiveness analysis.

To evaluate the effectiveness of palliative day care in improving pain, symptom control, and quality of life (QOL), 120 consecutive new referrals to five specialist palliative day care centers were recruited into a prospective comparative study. Fifty-three comparison patients were identified as those patients receiving usual palliative care services (home care, inpatient care), but did not attend day care. Patients were assessed at 3 interviews (baseline, 6-8 weeks, and 12-15 weeks) using measures of health-related quality of life: McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQOL) and Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS). There were two main analyses: 1) patient demographic data were analyzed using chi-square (chi(2)), and 2) QOL data were compared, based on distribution of scores, using the Mann-Whitney test (MQOL and POS), and Wilcoxon Signed Rank for within group differences (POS data only); P < 0.05 was taken as significant. The patients were representative of those attending palliative day care in the UK. At baseline, the day care group were (non-significantly) worse than the comparison group in the MQOL support domain (P = 0.065). The comparison group had marginally more severe pain at baseline (P = 0.053) and more severe symptoms at second assessment (P = 0.025). Both patient groups maintained overall health-related quality of life during the three months of the study. Palliative day care was not found to improve overall health-related quality of life. The limitations of the QOL measures in identifying the effects (patient outcomes) of palliative day care and the differences between the two patient groups (age, employment, unequal sample sizes) were limitations of the study and indicate the need for further research in this area.

Palliative care provision varies widely, and the effectiveness of palliative and hospice care teams (PCHCT) is unproven. To determine the effect of PCHCT, 10 electronic databases (to 2000), 4 relevant journals, associated reference lists, and the grey literature were searched. All PCHCT evaluations were included. Anecdotal and case reports were excluded. Forty-four studies evaluated PCHCT provision. Teams were home care (22), hospital-based (9), combined home/hospital care (4), inpatient units (3), and integrated teams (6). Studies were mostly Grade II or III quality. Funnel plots indicated slight publication bias. Meta-regression (26 studies) found slight positive effect, of approximately 0.1, of PCHCTs on patient outcomes, independent of team make-up, patient diagnosis, country, or study design. Meta-analysis (19 studies) demonstrated small benefit on patients' pain (odds ratio [OR]: 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.64), other symptoms (OR: 0.51, CI: 0.30-0.88), and a non-significant trend towards benefits for satisfaction, and therapeutic interventions. Data regarding home deaths were equivocal. Meta-synthesis (all studies) found wide variations in the type of service delivered by each team; there was no discernible difference in outcomes between city, urban, and rural areas. Evidence of benefit was strongest for home care. Only one study provided full economic cost-benefit evaluation. This is the first study to quantitatively demonstrate benefit from PCHCTs. Such comparisons were limited by the quality of the research.

A systematic review into palliative care team effectiveness was undertaken which has, inherent in its methodology, grey literature searching. Over 100 letters were written to a systematically chosen range of service providers, commissioners, and experts in combination with requests for information in six UK national cancer/palliative care organization newsletters. In addition, the System for Information on Grey Literature (SIGLE ) database was searched. As a result, 25 document hard copies were received. The documents were, in all but one case (this one study was also highlighted by the SIGLE search), not relevant as they were predominated by annual reports, service descriptions, and needs assessments. In terms of obtaining unpublished studies for possible inclusion in the review, this comprehensive search was unsuccessful and, therefore, it would appear that grey literature searching is not a useful tool in palliative care systematic reviews.