Defining the patient population: one of the problems for palliative care research

Abstract

There is a lack of clear definition and clear inclusion criteria in palliative care research. The aim of this study was to describe consequences of three inclusion criteria in the build up of different study populations, studied in terms of size, number of doctor-patient contacts and demographic characteristics. General practitioners received a questionnaire for all patients who died during the second Dutch National Survey of General Practice (n = 2194), to determine whether (1) patients received non-curative treatment; (2) patients received palliative care; and (3) death was expected (total response rate= 73%). The criterion ‘death was expected’ included most patients (62%) followed by ‘palliative care’ (46%) and ‘noncurative treatment’ (39%). Similarity between the definition-based populations was fair to moderate. More ‘palliative care’ and ‘death was expected’ in patients who had cancer than ‘non-curative treatment’ patients. The conclusions show substantial differences in populations according to the different inclusion criteria used to select them. Future research in palliative care should acknowledge the limitations of using certain inclusion criteria and explore potential bias.

Keywords

definitions epidemiology general practice palliative care patient selection public health

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

WHO . Cancer pain relief and palliative care. Technical report series 804. World Health Organization , 1990.

WHO . National cancer control programmes: policies and managerial guidelines. World Health Organization , 2002.

Lynn J , Harrell FE , Cohn F , et al. Defining the ‘terminally ill’: insights from SUPPORT . Duquesne Law Rev 1996; 35: 311-336 .

George LK. Research design in end-of-life research: state of science . Gerontologist 2002; 42 (Spec No. 3): 86-98 .

Lorenz K , Lynn J , Morton CS , et al. Appendix A. Scope of end-of-life populations. In End-of-Life care and outcomes. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality , 2004: A1-A13.

Teno JM , Coppola KM. For every numerator, you need a denominator: a simple statement but key to measuring the quality of care of the ‘dying’ . J Pain Symptom Manage 1999; 17: 109-113 .

Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD , Van der Heide A , Koper D , et al. Euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands in 1990, 1995, and 2001 . Lancet 2003; 362: 395-399 .

Van der Heide A , Deliens L , Faisst K , et al. End-of-life decision-making in six European countries: descriptive study . Lancet 2003; 362: 345-350 .

Westert GP , Schellevis FG , de Bakker DH , et al. Monitoring health inequalities through general practice: the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice . Eur J Publ Health 2005; 15: 59-65 .

10.

Lamberts H , Woods M , Hofmans-Okkes I. The international classification of primary care in the European Community. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1993, 4 A.D.

11.

Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall , 1991.

12.

Sibbald B , Addington-Hall J , Brenneman D , et al. Telephone versus postal surveys of general practitioners: methodological considerations . Br J Gen Pract 1994; 44: 297-300 .

13.

Walsh D , Regan J. Terminal care in the home - the general practice perspective . Ir Med J 2001; 94: 9-11 .

14.

Farquhar M , Grande G , Todd C , et al. Defining patients as palliative: hospital doctors’ versus general practitioners’ perceptions . Palliat Med 2002; 16: 247-250 .

15.

Christakis NA , Lamont EB. Extent and determinants of error in doctors’ prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study . BMJ 2000; 320: 469-472 .