23 research outputs found

    The complex relationship between household income of family caregivers, access to palliative care services and place of death : A national household population survey

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Previous work shows that more affluent patients with cancer are more likely to die at home, whereas those dying from non-cancer conditions are more likely to die in hospital. Family caregivers are an important factor in determining place of death. AIM: To investigate associations between family caregivers' household income, patients' access to specialist palliative care and place of patients' death, by level of personal end-of-life care. DESIGN: A cross-sectional community household population survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Respondents to the Household Survey for England. RESULTS: One-third of 1265 bereaved respondents had provided personal end-of-life care (caregivers) (30%). Just over half (55%) of decedents accessed palliative care services and 15% died in a hospice. Place of death and access to palliative care were strongly related ( p < 0.001). Palliative care services reduced the proportion of deaths in hospital ( p < 0.001), and decedents accessing palliative care were more likely to die at home than those who did not ( p < 0.001). Respondents' income was not associated with palliative care access ( p = 0.233). Overall, respondents' income and home death were not related ( p = 0.106), but decedents with caregivers in the highest income group were least likely to die at home ( p = 0.069). CONCLUSION: For people who had someone close to them die, decedents' access to palliative care services was associated with fewer deaths in hospital and more home deaths. Respondents' income was unrelated to care recipients' place of death when adjusted for palliative care access. When only caregivers were considered, decedents with caregivers from higher income quartiles were the least likely to die at home. Family caregivers from higher income brackets are likely to be powerful patient advocates. Caregiver information needs must be addressed especially with regard to stage of disease, aim of care and appropriate interventions at the end of life

    How does the side-effect information in patient information leaflets influence peoples’ side-effect expectations? A cross-sectional national survey of 18- to 65-year-olds in England

    Get PDF
    Objectives To establish how the terms recommended by the European Commission to describe side‐effect risk in patient information leaflets (PILs) influences expectations of side‐effects and to identify factors associated with these side‐effect expectations. Design A cross‐sectional online survey was carried out by a market research company. Setting Data were collected in England between 18th March and 1st April 2016. Participants A total of 1003 adults aged between 18 and 65. Main outcome measures: Self‐reported expectation that the described side‐effects would affect participants if they took the medicine, measured on a likelihood scale from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely). Results Participants formed high expectations of side‐effects for “very common” and “common” side‐effects, with 51.9% and 45.0% of participants rating these as “very likely” or “likely” to happen to them, respectively. This fell to 8.1% for “uncommon,” 5.8% for “rare” and 4.1% for “very rare.” For each descriptor, higher expectations of side‐effects were more associated with women or being from an ethnic minority, or having less education, a household illness, high perceived sensitivity to medicines or negative beliefs about medicines. Discussion The current use of verbal descriptors to communicate side‐effect risk in PILs leads to high side‐effect expectations. These expectations could contribute to nocebo‐induced medication side‐effects experienced by patients. Additional work is required to identify ways to improve the way risk information is conveyed in PILs

    Taking the strain? Impact of glaucoma on patients' informal caregivers

    Get PDF
    Purpose: To estimate informal caregiver (ICG) strain in people from a glaucoma clinic. Methods: Patients with glaucoma were consecutively identified from a single clinic in England for a cross-sectional postal survey. The sample was deliberately enriched with a number of patients designated as having advanced glaucoma (visual field [VF] mean deviation worse than -12 dB in both eyes). Patients were asked to identify an ICG who recorded a Modified Caregiver Strain Index (MCSI), a validated 13 item instrument scored on a scale of 0-26. Previous research has indicated mean MCSI to be >10 in Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease. All participants gave a self-reported measure of general health (EQ5D). Results: Responses from 105 patients (43% of those invited) were analysed; only 38 of the 105 named an ICG. Mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) MCSI was 2.4 (1.3, 3.6) and only three ICGs recorded a MCSI > 7. The percentage of patients with an ICG was much higher in patients with advanced VF loss (82%; 9/11) when compared to those with non-advanced VF loss (31%; 29/94; p=0.001). Mean (standard deviation) MCSI was considerably inflated in the advanced patients (5.6 [4.9] vs 1.5 [2.2] for non-advanced; p=0.040). Worsening VF and poorer self-reported general health (EQ5D) of the patient were associated with worsening MCSI. Conclusion: ICG strain, as measured by MCSI, for patients with non-advanced glaucoma is negligible, compared to other chronic disease. ICG strain increases moderately with worsening VFs but this could be partly explained by worse general health in our sample of patients
    corecore