Assessing unmet needs in patients with cancer: An investigation of differential item functioning of the Needs Evaluation Questionnaire across gender, age and phase of the disease - Fig 2

<p><b>Test Information Function of the <i>Needs Evaluation Questionnaire</i> (NEQ) across gender (a), age (b), and phase of the disease (c).</b> Latent trait (Theta) is shown on the horizontal axis. The amount of information (solid line) and the standard error (dotted line) yielded by the test at any trait level are shown on the vertical axis.</p

Test Information Function of the <i>Needs Evaluation Questionnaire</i> (NEQ).

<p>Latent trait (Theta) is shown on the horizontal axis. The amount of information (solid line) and the standard error (dotted line) yielded by the test at any trait level are shown on the vertical axis.</p

Discrimination and location parameters for each item of the Needs Evaluation Questionnaire (NEQ).

<p>Discrimination and location parameters for each item of the Needs Evaluation Questionnaire (NEQ).</p

Table_S2 – Supplemental material for Relationships among unmet needs, depression, and anxiety in non–advanced cancer patients

<p>Supplemental material, Table_S2 for Relationships among unmet needs, depression, and anxiety in non–advanced cancer patients by Martina Ferrari, Carla I. Ripamonti, Nicholas J. Hulbert-Williams and Guido Miccinesi in Tumori Journal</p

Factors associated with use of palliative care provided by GPs and specialist palliative care services^*.

<p>OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; Ref = reference category.</p><p>All percentages indicate proportions within the independent variable. Percentages are rounded and thus may not add up to 100.</p><p>Missing values for dependent variables: specialist palliative care n = 191 (4.3%); GP palliative care n = 55 (1.2%); missing values for independent variables: age n = 12 (0.3%), sex n = 12 (0.3%), cause of death n = 53 (1.2%), place of death n = 15 (0.3%).</p><p>Odds ratios in bold indicate statistically significant associations.</p><p>Independent variables age and cause of death were correlated (r = .40, p<.01). Variance inflation factors did not indicate problems of multicollinearity.</p><p>Two multivariate logistic regression analyses with 1) palliative care by the GP and 2) specialist palliative care as dependent variable.</p><p>Specialist palliative care and palliative care by the GP are not mutually exclusive categories.</p><p>Not included in significance tests.</p><p>OR not meaningful as 100% of cases have the same value on the dependent variable.</p><p>Missing values on the independent variables resulted in missing cases in the multivariate logistic regression analyses. The number of deaths included in the analyses are indicated.</p

Classification of specialist palliative care services and healthcare professionals involved in these services.

<p>Palliative care consultation teams offer services to patients at home as well as to patients in hospital/hospice/nursing home. Seventy-seven per cent of those for whom palliative care consultation is requested are cared for at home <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0084440#pone.0084440-Kuin1" target="_blank">[43]</a>.</p><p>GPs who followed a ‘training in palliative care for general practitioners with an advisory role’ offered by the Dutch Association of General Practitioners (Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap, NHG) and who are registered as palliative care advisors in a central database.</p><p>For patients admitted to hospital for at least one day in the last three months of life.</p><p>No specialist palliative care initiatives available.</p

Use of specialist palliative care services by country; % (95% CI), n.

<p>CI = confidence interval.</p><p>Percentages are within-country percentages. Percentages are rounded and thus may not add up to 100.</p><p>Missing values: specialist palliative care n = 191 (4.3%).</p><p>Palliative care categories are not mutually exclusive.</p><p>p-values are based on multivariate analyses adjusted for age, sex, cause and place of death.</p><p>Statistically significant in bivariate analysis.</p><p>Palliative care initiative not present in this country.</p><p>Palliative care consultation teams in the Netherlands provide services to people at home and in hospital. Our data do not hold information as to where the patients received this service.</p><p>Comparison between countries not possible.</p

Use of palliative care provided GPs and use of and number of days in specialist palliative care in the last three months of life; % (95% CI), n.

<p>IQR = inter-quartile range; CI = confidence interval.</p><p>Percentages are within-country percentages. Percentages are rounded and thus may not add up to 100.</p><p>Missing values: SPC n = 191 (4.3%); time of initiation of SPC n = 174 (3.9% of those who received SPC); palliative care by GP n = 55 (1.2%).</p><p>Palliative care categories are not mutually exclusive.</p><p>p-values based on multivariate analyses adjusted for age, sex, cause and place of death.</p><p>Kruskal-Wallis test (bivariate analysis).</p

The prevalence of patient-GP communication about medical EoL treatment preferences and patient appointment of a surrogate decision-maker (n = 4,396)^a.

a<p>% of missing observations ranged from 0.3–1.2%.</p>b<p>multivariable logistic regressions (forced enter). Dependent variables were ‘Patient did not discuss a medical EoL preference with GP or appoint a surrogate decision-maker’; ‘Patient discussed a medical EoL preference’; ‘Patient appointed a surrogate decision-maker’; ‘Patient appointed a surrogate decision-maker in writing’; and ‘Patient only appointed a surrogate decision-maker verbally’. Independent variables included country (OR and p-value shown), age, cause of death, dementia diagnosis; place of death; the number of contacts with the GP in the last week and in the second and third months before death; GP palliative care provision; the importance of curative, life-prolonging and palliative care as treatment aims and if the GP had discussed the primary diagnosis. The results of the multivariate logistic regressions were compared with equivalent univariate analyses (not shown) to check for any major differences in the magnitude or direction of associations.</p>c<p>Too few patients in this category to conduct a logistic regression.</p

Characteristics of non-sudden deaths in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain; % (95% CI), n.

<p>CI = confidence interval.</p><p>Percentages are within-country percentages. Percentages are rounded and thus may not add up to 100.</p><p>Nursing home deaths from the Netherlands (n = 52) were excluded.</p><p>Missing values: age n = 12 (0.3%), sex n = 12 (0.3%), place of death n = 15 (0.3%), cause of death n = 53 (1.2%).</p><p>Pearson <i>χ</i>² test.</p><p>Not included in significance tests.</p