Greater preferences for death in hospital and mechanical ventilation at the end of life among non-whites recently diagnosed with cancer

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-160684/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Greater preferences for death in hospital and mechanical ventilation at the end of life among non-whites recently diagnosed with cancer

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-160684/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Purpose: Minority cancer patients receive more aggressive care near death. This may indicate low quality end-of-life (EOL) care if discordant with patient preferences. We investigated preferred potential place of death and preferences regarding use of mechanical ventilation in a cohort of Texas cancer patients.

Methods: A population-based convenience sample of recently diagnosed cancer patients from the Texas Cancer Registry was surveyed using a multi-scale inventory between March 2018 and June 2020. Item responses to questions about preferences regarding location of death and mechanical ventilation were the outcome measures of this investigation. Inverse probability weighting analysis was used to construct multivariable logistic regression examining the associations of covariates.

Results: Of 1460 respondents, a majority (82%) preferred to die at home compared to 8% who preferred dying at the hospital. In total 25% of respondents expressed a preference for undergoing mechanical ventilation at the EOL. Adjusted analysis showed increased preference among Black (OR=1.81; 95% CI: 1.19-2.73) and other non-white, non-Hispanic race individuals (OR=3.53; 95% CI: 1.99-6.27) for dying at a hospital. Males, married individuals, those of higher education and poor self-reported health showed significantly higher preference for dying at home. Minority respondents of all non-white races were more likely to prefer mechanical ventilation at the EOL as were individuals who lived with another person at home.

Conclusion: Minority cancer patients were more likely to express preferences coinciding with aggressive EOL care including dying at the hospital and utilizing mechanical ventilation. These findings were independent of other sociodemographic characteristics, including decisional self-efficacy.

Oncology

Health Economics & Outcomes Research

cancer

mechanical ventilation

end of life

place of death

Previous studies have shown that racial/ethnic minority cancer patients disparately receive more aggressive end-of-life (EOL) care defined as admission to higher acuity care in their final days, lack of hospice utilization, and use of mechanical ventilation.^1–3 Not only are these aggressive measures indicative of potentially lower quality EOL care,^4,5 but they also raise the question of whether racial and ethnic minorities are experiencing what the Institute of Medicine (IOM) terms “a good death”. ⁶ Furthermore, overly aggressive end-of-life (EOL) measures can result in elevated health care costs, negatively impact patients’ quality of life and have detrimental effects on patients loved ones.^2,7–9 This issue is more apparent in cancer patients who often require early and more expansive EOL care due to the often predictable and chronic decline they incur.^10,11 In fact, cancer patients are more likely to experience aggressive near death treatment including receiving EOL chemotherapy, having emergency department visits, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions with mechanical ventilation.^5,12

Findings that minority cancer patients receive more aggressive care at the EOL raise the question of whether lack of access to effective palliative care and hospice programs is at fault.¹ However, a recent population based study among cancer patients in Texas examined racial differences in hospice use with payer characteristics and found that even as hospice enrollment differences were eliminated between fee-for-service and managed care Medicare beneficiaries due to increased access to hospice benefits, racial/ethnic disparities in hospice enrollment persisted.¹³ This raised the question of whether preferences for more aggressive care were contributing to observed EOL care disparities. Evidence suggests that cancer patients who participate in advanced care planning or effective EOL discussions with their providers will aim for quality and comfort-based care with the goals of avoiding aggressive measures such as mechanical ventilation and death within the ICU. ^7,14,15 However, programs and policy initiatives may need to dedicate efforts toward culturally responsive educational and social support for minority patients who may arrive at terminal illness with preferences for more aggressive or potentially futile care.¹⁶

In order to better understand EOL care variation among a racially, geographically, and socio-economically diverse population, we conducted a registry-based survey study and examined cancer patient preferences regarding dying at home versus in the hospital as well as use of mechanical ventilation in a large cohort of recently diagnosed Texas cancer patients.

Data Source, study sample and data collection procedure

This survey study is part (Project 4) of the larger multi-year Comparative Effectiveness Research on Cancer in Texas (CERCIT) program, funded by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) (https://www.utmb.edu/scoa/research/supported-research-programs/comparative-effectiveness-research-on-cancer-in-texas/current-projects).¹⁷ We recruited potential survey respondents from the state-wide population-based Texas Cancer Registry (TCR) ((https://www.dshs.state.tx.us/tcr/).¹⁸ A sample of 6222 TCR registrants 18 years of age and older with a diagnosis of a solid malignancy in the past 12 months were obtained. All stages of cancer were included. Of these, 5535 were determined to be alive and able to receive study questionnaires by mail delivery. In total, 1566 individuals responded between March 2018 and July 2020, yielding a response rate of 28.3%. Of these respondents, 1480 (93.2%) were included for this analysis as described below. We performed telephone follow-up early in the data collection time period, however yield was very low (<10%). For the first 2300 potential participants, we sent 3 follow-up reminders and two replacement study questionnaires at 2 weeks, 4-6 weeks, and 8-10 weeks to non-respondents. During the course of this study’s data collection efforts, the TCR/Texas Department of State Health Services changed their policy regarding the number of allowable attempted contacts to potential study participants and we limited contacts accordingly to a single follow-up reminder at 8-10 weeks after first mailing. The subsequent response rates were approximately 25% with either 1 versus 3 mail out attempts. Potential participants’ primary care physicians were notified of the study to ensure that there were no medical objections regarding participation; none objected. Due to resource constraints, questionnaires were available only in English. Individuals identified with Spanish surnames received an additional recruitment letter written in Spanish advising them to have an English-speaking family member to assist with translation of questionnaires.

Study measures

EOL care preferences were assessed using a previously published and validated instrument that generates 7 dichotomous outcome variables related to EOL patient preferences. ^19,20 For this is analysis, we focused on preferences regarding location of death and mechanical ventilation using a question stem that presented a hypothetical scenario of having an illness with certainty of < 1 year to live. Assessment of preferred location of death was one item that asked if the illness got worse “where would you like to spend your last days-in a hospital, a nursing home, or at home?” Responses could be: “Hospital”, “Nursing Home”, “Home”, “Don’t know”. “Home” and “Hospital” were used for this study. Preferences regarding mechanical ventilation were assessed by combining two items which asked respondents whether they would use a mechanical ventilator for extending their life by one week or one month (yes, no, unknown). A ‘Yes’ response to either item was categorized as a preference for mechanical ventilation. Health literacy was assessed using the Newest Vital Sign (NVS), a 6-item health literacy assessment structured around reading and understanding information on a nutrition label. The NVS has been validated with high reliability and validity against the Rapid Assessment of health Literacy in Medicine (REALM) and the Short Test of Functional Literacy in Adults (STOFLHA) and has a high sensitivity for ascertainment of health literacy.^21,22 The scale classifies respondents’ high likelihood of limited health literacy (score: 0-1), possibility of limited health literacy (score: 2-3), and adequate health literacy (score: 4-6). For the purposes of this study we condensed this to two categories: adequate health literacy (score ³4) or limited health literacy (score < 4) and those that did not fill out the scale were classified as “unknown”. Decisional self-efficacy was assessed using the Decisional Self-Efficacy Scale (DSES) an 11-item, 5-point rating scale with statements assessing a patient’s feelings of adequacy and efficiency in dealing with life situations and perceived ability to engage in treatment decisions (score range: 0= “Not Confident”, 2= ”A Little Confident”, to 4=”A Lot Confident”). The total score is summed, then divided by 11 and then multiplied by 25, with scale score ranging from 0 (not confident) to 100 (extremely confident). The scale was developed by the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Patient Decision Aids Research Group.²³ It provides a measure of a patient’s ability to engage in procurement of information about treatment options, express concerns, and make treatment choices. The scale has a high reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.84.

Socio-demographic and cancer clinical characteristics were obtained from a combination of TCR registry data and self-reported information. Race/ethnicity was self-reported or, in cases of missing self-reported values was obtained from TCR registry. Only 64 of 1480 respondents (4.4%) did not self-report race/ethnicity and were thus assigned by the TCR data. Agreement between TCR race/ethnicity data for the remaining 1411 was high with 94% agreement on ethnicity and 98% agreement on race. Race and ethnicity groups are non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic. Additional items included: age, gender, primary language spoken in the home, income, marital status, whether the individual lived alone or with others, and highest-attained education level. Self-reported health was collected using the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey,²⁴ which asks respondents to rate their health on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent. Rurality and Texas Health Service Region were derived by zip code at the time of diagnosis of cancer, with rurality being defined per the US Department of Agriculture 2013 Rural/Urban Continuum Codes with scores of 1-3 yielding an urban designation and 4-9 being considered as rural.²⁵ Finally, Cancer type and stage at diagnosis were obtained from the TCR database.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were generated for demographic and socio-economic characteristics. In order to address potential selection bias from in our findings observed in this convenience sample, we performed an inverse probability weighting analysis.²⁶ For each observed case (n=1460), we computed the probability of return of the survey form the pool of 5320 eligible non-missing cases. We determined the weights based upon five available factors: age, gender, race/ethnicity, cancer site, health services area in Texas. The inverse probability of response was derived to weight each observation attempting to balance the selection bias due to non-response. Finally, normalized inversed probability (inversed probability divided by the mean) was used in the final weighting analyses. Normalized inverse probability reduces the weight loading because weights can increase the standard errors of estimates and introduce instability in the data. Significance of differences between responses to items with regard to socio-demographic characteristics were assessed using a Rao-Scott Chi-square test for the weighted data.²⁷ Logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the significance of demographic, socio-economic factors, health literacy and DSES score on respondents’ preferences. All factors were included in the multivariable model, and odds ratios (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported for each covariate, a p-value of <0.05 was deemed to be statistically significant. Finally, responses to the items were assessed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test to examine the association of EOL preferences for location of death and use of mechanical ventilation with decisional self-efficacy using the DSES aggregate scores of each respondent. DSES score was included in the multivariable models as a continuous variable. Data analyses were performed using SAS (version 9.4 SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

Of the 1566 respondents, 1460 (93.2%) completed the EOL care, and decisional self-efficacy scale. Unweighted and weighted respondent characteristics are displayed in Table 1. In the unweighted sample, a majority of respondents were female (66.6%), age 41-64 (51.1%), married (65.8%), college-educated (73.9%), and reside within an urban location (86%). A total of 72% of respondents were white compared to 10% black and 16% Hispanic. This is notably different from the racial make-up of Texas which is 41% non-Hispanic white, 40% Hispanic and 13% non-Hispanic black.²⁸ A majority of respondents reported an income level of $40,000 - $99,999 (32.7%) which is well above the reported median per capita income for Texans which is $30,143.²⁸ Most respondents (41.4%) reported having “good” self-reported health, and had adequate health literacy (61.1%). The most common primary disease sites were breast (39.5%) and colorectal (15.1%), with 57.8% of respondents having cancer localized to the primary site, 23.9% who had regional extension of their tumor and 7.2% with distant disease.

Among respondents, 7.6% expressed preference for dying at a hospital while 82.0% preferred to die at home. Distribution of respondent answers by socio-demographic factors by preference for death location are shown in Table 2. Univariate analyses revealed that 13.1% of Blacks and 13.6% of other (non-white, non-Hispanic) race respondents indicated a preference for spending their last day in the hospital. This finding remained significant on adjusted analyses (Table 3) which showed respondents who were Black (OR= 1.80; 95% CI: 1.19-2.73, p=0.005) or of other non-white race/ethnicity (OR = 3.53; 95% CI: 1.99-6.27, p<.001) were significantly and independently more likely to indicate preference for spending their last days in a hospital compared to white respondents. Preference for dying at home was observed among male respondents, those with college education or greater, and those with poor self-reported health. On multivariable analysis (Table 3), those with college education or greater (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.24-0.67, p<.001), non-English language spoken at home (OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.30-0.98, p=0.04), and having poor self-reported health (OR = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.18-0.97, p=0.04) were independently associated with less likelihood for indicating preference for dying in a hospital.

Univariate analyses (Table 2) further revealed that gender (p=0.024), education level (p=0.033), and self-reported health (p=0.021) were significantly associated with preference to die at home. On adjusted analyses male gender (OR= 1.48; 95% CI: 1.19-1.85, p=.0.001), college education or greater (OR = 2.25; 95% CI: 1.51-3.36, p<.001), and poor (vs excellent) self-reported health (OR=1.92; 95%CI: 1.10-3.34, p=0.021) were independently associated with increased likelihood of preference for dying at home. Factors that were independently associated with a decreased likelihood of preferring death at home were all age categories greater than 40 years (compared to ages 21-40 years), Other non-white race/ethnicity (OR=0.47; 95%CI: 0.30-0.73, p=.001); unmarried status (OR=0.66; 95% CI: 0.50-0.87, P=.003), and good (vs excellent) self-reported health (OR=0.77; 95% CI: 0.60-0.99, p=0.040). Notably DSES were not associated with EOL preferences. Mean DSES scores were 84.8 [standard deviation (SD) 18.5), 85.1 (SD 18.4), and 85.4 (SD 19.1) for those exhibiting preferences to die at the hospital, die at home and for mechanical ventilation, respectively.

Investigation of preferences regarding use of mechanical ventilation at the EOL showed 25.3% of respondents reported a preference for mechanical ventilation while 74.7% preferred no mechanical ventilation. Table 4 shows univariate analysis revealing that age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, language spoken at home, and health literacy score were significantly associated with preferences regarding mechanical ventilation. In adjusted analyses, two factors were independently associated with higher likelihood of preference for undergoing mechanical ventilation at the EOL: race/ethnicity and living with someone vs. alone. Specifically, Black OR=2.25 (95%CI; 1.71-2.95, p<0.001), Hispanic OR=1.61 (95%CI; 1.23-2.11, p=0.001), and other non-white race/ethnicity (vs white race/ethnicity) OR=1.79 (95%CI; 1.19-2.71, p=0.005) all were more likely to prefer mechanical ventilation compared to white respondents. Those living with someone else (vs. living alone) (OR=1.60; 95%CI: 1.15-2.21, p=0.005) were also more likely to prefer mechanical ventilation at the EOL. The following were independently associated with lower likelihood of preference for mechanical ventilation : older age versus age 21-40 years (p<.001), higher educational levels such as completion of high school (OR=0.48; 95%CI: 0.34-0.70, p<.001) and > college education (vs < some high school) (OR=0.50 (95%CI; 0.35-0.70, p=0.001)), good (vs excellent) self-reported health (OR=0.76; 95%CI: 0.61-0.94, p=0.013) and adequate (vs limited) health literacy (OR=0.80; 95%CI: 0.65-0.99, p=0.040).

In this population-based survey study of Texas cancer patients we observed that non-white racial/ethnic minority individuals recently diagnosed with cancer were more likely to express preferences for higher acuity EOL care, such as spending their last days in the hospital or desiring mechanical ventilation, compared to their white counterparts. These findings persisted even when adjusting for socio-demographic variables, health literacy, and decisional self-efficacy. These observations are of particular relevance given a prior study showing that Black and Hispanic Texas cancer patients were more likely to receive more aggressive care at the EOL² and a subsequent study showing that hospice use was significantly lower among non-white cancer patients in Texas.³ The latter study attempted to ascertain whether payer benefit characteristics influenced hospice utilization and found that even though differences in hospice utilization previously observed between fee-for-service Medicare and Medicare managed care were eliminated over time, racial/ethnic disparities in hospice use persisted. Our study suggests that racial/ethnic variation in EOL care may be a result of preferences among racial/ethnic minority patients for more aggressive care.

Other studies have reported that minority patients express preferences towards aggressive EOL care measures.^19,29,30 A survey on over 2500 Medicare patients evaluating patients willingness to engage in various EOL treatment measures noted that 35% of Black vs 15% of white patients expressed a desire for more treatment.³⁰ A systematic review examined the impact of ethnic disparities on EOL care preferences and reported that Black patients preferred more aggressive treatment and that both Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to have documented advanced care plans.³¹ The latter observation was at least partially attributable to religious coping and spirituality concerns which were not measured in our study.³¹ Another systematic review similarly showed that Blacks preferred aggressive EOL care citing knowledge of and access to hospice services as one of the potential explanations.¹⁶ Others have reported that Black and Hispanic patients lack of awareness or information about hospice services.^32,33 Inadequate access to hospice potentially hampering high quality EOL care and “good death”⁶ is a concern of national importance. A recently published analysis of over 125,000 Medicare beneficiaries treated at NCI/NCCN cancer centers showing that minority-serving cancer centers independently had inferior performance on EOL quality metrics translating to more aggressive EOL measures including ICU admissions and lack of hospice referral.¹

Place of death may serve as a surrogate for aggressiveness of care as death within a hospital can correspond with decreased participation in hospice services. Data reveal that a majority (50-90%) of cancer patients express a preference for dying at home.³⁴ Despite this there has been a growing trend toward cancer deaths occurring away from home.³⁵ If individuals prefer death out of a hospital, this trend suggests EOL care that may be discordant with preferences. However, even among patients who may prefer death in the hospital, this setting for death is associated with elevated health care costs and, more importantly, poor quality of life for patients and families.^2,7–9 Investigators have shown that cancer patients who die in an ICU or hospital experience more physical and emotional distress and worse quality of life near death.^36,37 Furthermore, caregivers of patients who die in the hospital or ICU have heightened risk of post-traumatic stress disorder from the EOL experience of their family member.³⁶ Thus cancer-related death that includes high-acuity care have negative impacts for both patients and subsequently bereaved caregivers.

Our study offers data to aid in identifying specific patient groups that may gravitate towards aggressive EOL care measures. Such information could help clinicians and policy makers craft programs and policies tailored to groups at risk of poor quality EOL care. Possible rationale for such preferences among minority patients may involve strong religious beliefs, family/social dynamics, or significant barriers to access of palliative care services for minority patients in general.^38–41 It would likely serve to improve palliative care provision if providers were attuned to which patients may elect more aggressive EOL care and engage in early discussions regarding potential benefits or drawbacks to aggressive care and thus facilitate advanced care planning. Furthermore, evidence suggests that performing advanced care planning and discussing preferences regarding location of death will increase the probability of patients dying at their preferred location.⁴²

Culturally competent and patient-centered palliative care programs improve EOL care quality among racial/ethnic minority populations.^43,44 The observation in our study that adequate health literacy was independently associated with a decreased likelihood of preference for mechanical ventilation at the EOL suggests that there is some quality of care improvement to be affected by well-designed, culturally responsive efforts to educate diverse cancer patients about the expected benefits of aggressive EOL care measures. Additional factors beyond race/ethnicity contribute to EOL care preferences. We also observed that an individual’s home social situation influenced preferences regarding aggressiveness of EOL care. Unmarried individuals were less likely to want to die at home, possibly owing to not wanting to be alone at the EOL. This raises the importance of assessment of social supports for individuals with terminal cancer. Respondents who lived with others versus alone were more likely to express favorable preferences for mechanical ventilation use, perhaps reflecting that the aggressive measures may stave off abandonment of family members should they become terminally ill. Awareness of this fact can help individuals cope with EOL decision-making relative to a terminally ill patient’s relationships and feelings of responsibility.

It is important to acknowledge several limitations inherent to this mail-in survey study. These include non-response bias, low response rate, questionable comprehension capabilities for individuals with low health literacy or those who are non-English speakers, and the inability to question respondents for further information/rationale for their responses. Unfortunately due to resource limitations our study was unable to provide a Spanish version of this survey thus explaining the under-representative of non-English speaking Hispanic patients in Texas.²⁸ Additionally, there was significant overrepresentation of non-Hispanic respondents relative to the state population which impacts the generalizability of this data. Additionally, some investigators have shown that preferences regarding EOL care interventions may vary over the time course of a life-threatening disease such that, as a patient experiences more disability from disease or expected disability from more treatment, they may correspondingly desire less aggressive care.⁴⁵ We only surveyed patients at one time point in their cancer disease course and thus did not capture this potential phenomenon. Despite these limitations, considering the large size of this study and important findings we feel that it contributes to our understanding of EOL care preferences in cancer patients among a large, populous state whose demographic make-up mirrors the expected future diversity of the US national population.

In conclusion, non-white racial/ethnic minorities recently diagnosed with cancer expressed generally more favorable preferences towards pursuit of aggressive EOL measures including dying in a hospital and pursuing mechanical ventilation. These findings suggest that observed disparities reported regarding potential low quality EOL care among racial/ethnic minority patients with cancer is at least in part a reflection of patient preferences. These data may help inform programmatic or policy initiatives to address observed disparities and ensure that members of all racial/ethnic groups have access to their preferred “good death”.

Funding:

This research was supported by a grant from the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas (RP160674, Guadagnolo co-PI). The funding source was uninvolved in the conduct of the research and the interpretation of results.

Conflict of interest statement:

The authors declare no conflicts of interest with the funder and none with other entities related to the research.

Availability of Data:

The authors have full control of the data which were obtained under a Data Use Agreement from the Texas Cancer Registry and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. These data are confidential and cannot be shared. The TCR is the 4th largest cancer registry in the US that meets the rigorous data standards of the National Program of the Central Cancer Registries and the Centers for Disease Control, and is Gold Certified by the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.

Author contributions:

Conceptualization: B. Ashleigh Guadagnolo. Statistical analysis: Kaiping Liao. Composition/writing of initial draft - David Boyce-Fappiano, B. Ashleigh Guadagnolo. Reviewing & Editing: David Boyce-Fappiano, Kaiping Liao, Christopher Miller, Susan K. Peterson, Linda Elting, B. Ashleigh Guadagnolo.

Ethics approval:

All study procedures were approved by both the Texas Department of State Health Services and MD Anderson institutional review boards.

Consent to participate & publish:

All subjects voluntarily participated in this study and authorized MD Anderson Cancer Center to utilize and share the obtained data for research and publication purposes.

Wasp GT, Alam SS, Brooks GA, et al. End-of-life quality metrics among medicare decedents at minority-serving cancer centers: A retrospective study. Cancer Med. 2020;9(5):1911-1921. doi:10.1002/cam4.2752
Guadagnolo BA, Liao K-P, Giordano SH, Elting LS, Shih Y-CT. Variation in Intensity and Costs of Care by Payer and Race for Patients Dying of Cancer in Texas: An Analysis of Registry-linked Medicaid, Medicare, and Dually Eligible Claims Data. Med Care. 2015;53(7):591-598. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000369
Elting LS, Liao K-P, Giordano SH, Guadagnolo BA. Hospice enrollment among cancer patients in Texas covered by Medicare managed care and traditional fee-for-service plans: a statewide population-based study. Support Care Cancer Off J Multinatl Assoc Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(7):3351-3359. doi:10.1007/s00520-019-05142-z
Earle CC, Landrum MB, Souza JM, Neville BA, Weeks JC, Ayanian JZ. Aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life: is it a quality-of-care issue? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(23):3860-3866. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.15.8253
Earle CC, Neville BA, Landrum MB, Ayanian JZ, Block SD, Weeks JC. Trends in the aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2004;22(2):315-321. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.08.136
Institute of Medicine (IOM), Committee on Care at the End of Life, Division of Health, Care Services. Approaching Death, Improving Care at the End of Life. (Field M, Cassel C, eds.). National Academy Press; 1997.
Wright AA, Zhang B, Ray A, et al. Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2008;300(14):1665-1673. doi:10.1001/jama.300.14.1665
Chastek B, Harley C, Kallich J, Newcomer L, Paoli CJ, Teitelbaum AH. Health Care Costs for Patients With Cancer at the End of Life. J Oncol Pract. 2012;8(6S):75s-80s. doi:10.1200/JOP.2011.000469
Round J, Jones L, Morris S. Estimating the cost of caring for people with cancer at the end of life: A modelling study. Palliat Med. 2015;29(10):899-907. doi:10.1177/0269216315595203
Lunney JR, Lynn J, Foley DJ, Lipson S, Guralnik JM. Patterns of functional decline at the end of life. JAMA. 2003;289(18):2387-2392. doi:10.1001/jama.289.18.2387
Teno JM, Weitzen S, Fennell ML, Mor V. Dying trajectory in the last year of life: does cancer trajectory fit other diseases? J Palliat Med. 2001;4(4):457-464. doi:10.1089/109662101753381593
Wright AA, Hatfield LA, Earle CC, Keating NL. End-of-life care for older patients with ovarian cancer is intensive despite high rates of hospice use. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2014;32(31):3534-3539. doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.55.5383
Elting LS, Liao K-P, Giordano SH, Guadagnolo BA. Hospice enrollment among cancer patients in Texas covered by Medicare managed care and traditional fee-for-service plans: a statewide population-based study. Support Care Cancer Off J Multinatl Assoc Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(7):3351-3359. doi:10.1007/s00520-019-05142-z
Mack JW, Weeks JC, Wright AA, Block SD, Prigerson HG. End-of-Life Discussions, Goal Attainment, and Distress at the End of Life: Predictors and Outcomes of Receipt of Care Consistent With Preferences. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(7):1203-1208. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.25.4672
Ahluwalia SC, Tisnado DM, Walling AM, et al. Association of Early Patient-Physician Care Planning Discussions and End-of-Life Care Intensity in Advanced Cancer. J Palliat Med. 2015;18(10):834-841. doi:10.1089/jpm.2014.0431
Wicher CP, Meeker MA. What influences African American end-of-life preferences? J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2012;23(1):28-58. doi:10.1353/hpu.2012.0027
Current Projects | Sealy Center on Aging | UTMB Home. https://www.utmb.edu/scoa/research/supported-research-programs/comparative-effectiveness-research-on-cancer-in-texas/current-projects
TCR | Home. Accessed September 3, 2020. https://www.dshs.state.tx.us/tcr/
Barnato AE, Anthony DL, Skinner J, Gallagher PM, Fisher ES. Racial and ethnic differences in preferences for end-of-life treatment. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(6):695-701. doi:10.1007/s11606-009-0952-6
Barnato AE, Herndon MB, Anthony DL, et al. Are Regional Variations in End-of-Life Care Intensity Explained by Patient Preferences? Med Care. 2007;45(5):386-393. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000255248.79308.41
Weiss BD, Mays MZ, Martz W, et al. Quick Assessment of Literacy in Primary Care: The Newest Vital Sign. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(6):514-522. doi:10.1370/afm.405
Osborn CY, Weiss BD, Davis TC, et al. Measuring adult literacy in health care: performance of the newest vital sign. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31 Suppl 1:S36-46. doi:10.5555/ajhb.2007.31.supp.S36
O’Connor A. User Manual-Decision Self-Efficacy Scale [Internet]. Published modified 2002 1995. Accessed November 16, 2020. https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/User_Manuals/UM_Decision_SelfEfficacy.pdf
Medicare Health Outcomes Survey. https://www.hosonline.org/
USDA ERS - Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. Accessed September 3, 2020. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes.aspx
Seaman SR, White IR. Review of inverse probability weighting for dealing with missing data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013;22(3):278-295. doi:10.1177/0962280210395740
Rao JNK, Scott AJ. On Simple Adjustments to Chi-Square Tests with Sample Survey Data. Ann Stat. 1987;15(1):385-397. doi:10.1214/aos/1176350273
U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Texas. Accessed August 31, 2020. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/TX
Caralis PV, Davis B, Wright K, Marcial E. The influence of ethnicity and race on attitudes toward advance directives, life-prolonging treatments, and euthanasia. J Clin Ethics. 1993;4(2):155-165.
Garrett JM, Harris RP, Norburn JK, Patrick DL, Danis M. Life-sustaining treatments during terminal illness: who wants what? J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8(7):361-368.
LoPresti MA, Dement F, Gold HT. End-of-Life Care for People With Cancer From Ethnic Minority Groups: A Systematic Review. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2016;33(3):291-305. doi:10.1177/1049909114565658
Rhodes RL, Teno JM, Welch LC. Access to hospice for African Americans: are they informed about the option of hospice? J Palliat Med. 2006;9(2):268-272. doi:10.1089/jpm.2006.9.268
Born W, Greiner KA, Sylvia E, Butler J, Ahluwalia JS. Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about end-of-life care among inner-city African Americans and Latinos. J Palliat Med. 2004;7(2):247-256. doi:10.1089/109662104773709369
Higginson IJ, Sen-Gupta GJ. Place of care in advanced cancer: a qualitative systematic literature review of patient preferences. J Palliat Med. 2000;3(3):287-300. doi:10.1089/jpm.2000.3.287
Munday D, Dale J, Murray S. Choice and place of death: individual preferences, uncertainty, and the availability of care. J R Soc Med. 2007;100(5):211-215.
Wright AA, Keating NL, Balboni TA, Matulonis UA, Block SD, Prigerson HG. Place of death: correlations with quality of life of patients with cancer and predictors of bereaved caregivers’ mental health. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2010;28(29):4457-4464. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3863
Roulston A, Campbell A, Cairnduff V, Fitzpatrick D, Donnelly C, Gavin A. Bereavement outcomes: A quantitative survey identifying risk factors in informal carers bereaved through cancer. Palliat Med. 2017;31(2):162-170. doi:10.1177/0269216316649127
Phelps AC, Maciejewski PK, Nilsson M, et al. Religious coping and use of intensive life-prolonging care near death in patients with advanced cancer. JAMA. 2009;301(11):1140-1147. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.341
Crawley L. Palliative and End-of-Life Care in the African American Community. JAMA. 2000;284(19):2518. doi:10.1001/jama.284.19.2518
Gordon AK. Hospice and Minorities: A National Study of Organizational Access and Practice. Hosp J. 1996;11(1):49-70. doi:10.1080/0742-969X.1996.11882815
Morrison RS, Zayas LH, Mulvihill M, Baskin SA, Meier DE. Barriers to Completion of Health Care Proxies: An Examination of Ethnic Differences. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158(22):2493. doi:10.1001/archinte.158.22.2493
Collis E, Al-Qurainy R. Care of the dying patient in the community. BMJ. 2013;347:f4085. doi:10.1136/bmj.f4085
Fischer SM, Sauaia A, Kutner JS. Patient navigation: a culturally competent strategy to address disparities in palliative care. J Palliat Med. 2007;10(5):1023-1028. doi:10.1089/jpm.2007.0070
Marr L, Neale D, Wolfe V, Kitzes J. Confronting myths: the Native American experience in an academic inpatient palliative care consultation program. J Palliat Med. 2012;15(1):71-76. doi:10.1089/jpm.2011.0197
Fried TR, Bradley EH, Towle VR, Allore H. Understanding the treatment preferences of seriously ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(14):1061-1066. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa012528

Table 1 – Patient Demographics

	Number	Unweighted %	Weighted %
Total cases	1460	100.0	100.0
Age
21-40	102	7.0	7.5
41-64	746	51.1	50.6
65-79	547	37.5	36.9
80+	65	4.5	5.0
Gender
Female	972	66.6	60.7
Male	488	33.4	39.3
Race/Ethnicity
White non-Hispanic	1045	71.6	61.3
Black non-Hispanic	144	9.9	13.2
Hispanic	227	15.6	20.0
Others	44	3.0	5.5
Language at home
English	1311	89.8	86.1
Others	100	6.9	9.7
UNK	49	3.4	4.2
Education
<Some HS	104	7.1	9.3
HS	251	17.2	19.2
Some college and above	1079	73.9	69.6
UNK	26	1.8	1.9
Marital status
Married	961	65.8	65.1
Not Married	476	32.6	33.1
UNK	23	1.6	1.9
Living arrangements
Alone	253	17.3	16.6
With someone	1190	81.5	82.0
UNK	17	1.2	1.4
Income
Less than $19,999	194	13.3	15.4
$20,000 - $39,999	174	11.9	12.8
$40,000 - $99,999	478	32.7	32.0
$100,000 or more	393	26.9	24.4
UNK	221	15.1	15.3
Rural/Urban -
Urban	1256	86.0	85.8
Rural	204	14.0	14.2
Self-reported health
Excellent	479	32.8	31.2
Good	604	41.4	40.5
Fair	289	19.8	21.6
Poor	81	5.6	6.3
Health literacy score
Limited literacy(<=4)	439	30.1	32.9
Adequate literacy(>4)	892	61.1	57.3
UNK	129	8.8	9.8

HS = High School, UNK = Unknown

Table 2 - Respondent Answers (weighted) to Patients Preference for Location of Death by Socio-economic Factors

Preference Dying at Hospital (%)

Rao-Scott

p-value

Preference for Dying at Home (%)

Rao-Scott

p-value

Total cases

107 (7.6)

1198 (82.0)

Gender

Female

Male

75 (7.9)

32 (7.1)

0.652

783 (79.9)

415 (85.3)

0.024

Age

21-40

41-64

65-79

80+

7 (6.0)

60 (8.2)

33 (7.0)

7 (7.9)

0.816

91 (90.1)

620 (82.7)

437 (79.7)

50 (80.5)

0.111

Race/Ethnicity

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

65 (5.8)

18 (13.1)

18 (7.7)

6 (13.6)

0.012

861 (83.2)

111 (75.8)

193 (85.0)

33 (73.6)

0.071

Education

< Some HS

College or >

14 (13.4)

22 (9.7)

70 (6.2)

0.096

79 (76.8)

194 (76.1)

903 (84.4)

0.033

Income

< $19.9K

$20K- $39.9K

$40K-$99.9K

> $100,000

UNK

13 (8.7)

10 (7.5)

40 (7.4)

23 (5.0)

21 (11.1)

0.221

163 (83.2)

145 (81.7)

389 (83.2)

333 (84.5)

168 (74.7)

0.100

Marital status

Married

Not Married

66 (6.8)

40 (9.1)

0.470

803 (83.5)

375 (78.9)

0.192

Living Situation

Alone

With someone

21 (7.9)

85 (7.4)

0.750

204 (81.4)

979 (82.1)

0.972

Home Language

English

Others

UNK

98 (7.6)

7 (8.1)

2 (6.1)

0.937

1072 (81.9)

83 (81.5)

43 (85.4)

0.862

Rural/Urban

Urban

Rural

93 (7.7)

14 (6.7)

0.641

1031 (81.7)

167 (84.1)

0.422

Self-Reported Health

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

34 (6.8)

45 (8.3)

22 (8.2)

5 (4.2)

0.637

404 (84.8)

485 (79.4)

238 (81.5)

68 (89.0)

0.021

Health Literacy

Limited (<4)

Adequate (>4)

UNK

39 (9.2)

57 (5.9)

11 (11.9)

0.050

352 (79.8)

742 (84.1)

104 (77.4)

0.109

HS = High School, K = Thousand US Dollars UNK = Unknown

Table 3– Weighted Multivariate Analyses of Patients Preferences for Place of Death and Mechanical Ventilation

HS = High School, K = Thousand US Dollars UNK = Unknown, DSE = Decisional Self-efficacy

Multivariate Analysis

Factor

Reference group

Preference to Die at Hospital

Preference to Die at Home

Preference for Mechanical Ventilation at EOL

OR (95% CI) p-value

Gender

Male

Female

0.90 (0.66 - 1.24) 0.524

1.48 (1.19 - 1.85) 0.001

1.09 (0.90 - 1.33) 0.374

Age

41-64

65-79

80+

21-40

1.43 (0.75 - 2.73) 0.284

1.16 (0.59 - 2.27) 0.668

1.25 (0.50 - 3.13) 0.642

0.49 (0.29 - 0.81) 0.005

0.38 (0.23 - 0.64) <.001

0.40 (0.20 - 0.78) 0.008

0.54 (0.39 - 0.75) <0.001

0.36 (0.25 - 0.51) <0.001

0.30 (0.17 - 0.53) <0.001

Race/Ethnicity

Black

Hispanic

Other

White

1.80 (1.19 - 2.73) 0.005

1.27 (0.81 - 1.98) 0.296

3.53 (1.99 - 6.27) <.001

0.74 (0.55 - 1.01) 0.061

1.27 (0.91 - 1.78) 0.156

0.47 (0.30 - 0.73) 0.001

2.25 (1.71 - 2.95) <0.001

1.61 (1.23 - 2.11) 0.001

1.79 (1.19 - 2.71) 0.005

Education

College or >

UNK

< Some HS

0.60 (0.35 - 1.01) 0.052

0.40 (0.24 - 0.67) <.001

0.44 (0.08 - 2.46) 0.352

1.22 (0.81 - 1.83) 0.340

2.25 (1.51 - 3.36) <.001

1.19 (0.41 - 3.45) 0.756

0.48 (0.34 - 0.70) <0.001

0.50 (0.35 - 0.70) 0.001

1.59 (0.62 - 4.08) 0.332

Income

$20K- $39.9K

$40K-$99.9K

> $100,000

UNK

< $19.9K

1.06 (0.60 - 1.86) 0.844

1.26 (0.76 - 2.08) 0.375

0.85 (0.47 - 1.55) 0.591

1.44 (0.86 - 2.42) 0.168

0.75 (0.50 - 1.12) 0.157

0.73 (0.51 - 1.06) 0.098

0.68 (0.45 - 1.03) 0.067

0.55 (0.38 - 0.81) 0.002

1.43 (1.01 - 2.02) 0.043

0.96 (0.69 - 1.32) 0.794

0.91 (0.63 - 1.31) 0.607

1.14 (0.80 - 1.62) 0.457

Marital status

Not Married

UNK

Married

1.26 (0.86 - 1.86) 0.242

1.16 (0.28 - 4.73) 0.837

0.66 (0.50 - 0.87) 0.003

1.14 (0.39 - 3.35) 0.819

1.18 (0.92 - 1.51) 0.196

0.68 (0.28 - 1.67) 0.399

Living Situation

With someone

UNK

Alone

1.18 (0.72 - 1.93) 0.505

2.63 (0.50 - 14.0) 0.256

0.73 (0.52 - 1.03) 0.070

1.27 (0.35 - 4.61) 0.720

1.60 (1.15 - 2.21) 0.005

1.36 (0.44 - 4.20) 0.592

Home Language

Others

UNK

English

0.54 (0.30 - 0.98) 0.041

0.42 (0.15 - 1.14) 0.088

1.25 (0.81 - 1.92) 0.316

1.33 (0.70 - 2.55) 0.385

1.00 (0.70 - 1.43) 0.985

0.97 (0.59 - 1.61) 0.909

Rural/Urban

Rural

Urban

0.85 (0.54 - 1.35) 0.491

1.20 (0.88 - 1.64) 0.256

0.83 (0.63 - 1.11) 0.215

Self-Reported Health

Good

Fair

Poor

Unknown

Excellent

1.09 (0.76 - 1.57) 0.641

1.03 (0.67 - 1.59) 0.887

0.41 (0.18 - 0.97) 0.042

2.60 (0.38 - 17.6) 0.328

0.77 (0.60 - 0.99) 0.040

0.94 (0.69 - 1.27) 0.681

1.92 (1.10 - 3.34) 0.021

0.18 (0.05 - 0.60) 0.005

0.76 (0.61 - 0.94) 0.013

0.77 (0.59 - 1.00) 0.054

0.73 (0.48 - 1.12) 0.150

Health Literacy

Adequate (>4)

UNK

Limited (<4)

0.75 (0.53 - 1.06) 0.103

1.05 (0.65 - 1.70) 0.836

1.18 (0.93 - 1.49) 0.186

1.06 (0.74 - 1.52) 0.739

0.80 (0.65 - 0.99) 0.040

0.80 (0.57 - 1.13) 0.207

DSE Score

Continuous

1.00 (0.99 - 1.01) 0.790

1.00 (1.00 - 1.01) 0.436

1.00 (1.00 - 1.01) 0.885

Table 4 - Respondent Answers (weighted) to Patients Preference for Mechanical Ventilation at EOL by Socio-economic Factors

Yes to Ventilator at EOL (%)

Rao-Scott

p-value

Total cases

340 (25.3)

Gender

Female

Male

218 (25.3)

122 (25.3)

0.992

Age

21-40

41-64

65-79

80+

42 (42.5)

180 (27.8)

107 (19.6)

11 (16.0)

<.001

Race/Ethnicity

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

191 (18.7)

58 (38.9)

77 (34.7)

14 (31.3)

<.001

Education

<Some HS

College or >

42 (42.8)

56 (24.6)

233 (22.7)

<.001

Income

< $19.9K

$20K- $39.9K

$40K-$99.9K

> $100,000

UNK

52 (27.9)

50 (32.2)

101 (21.7)

84 (22.5)

53 (28.8)

0.062

Marital status

Married

Not Married

216 (24.2)

117 (27.1)

0.469

Living Situation

Alone

With someone

48 (19.4)

286 (26.3)

0.082

Home Language

English

Others

UNK

286 (23.6)

38 (35.9)

16 (34.6)

0.016

Rural/Urban

Urban

Rural

300 (26.0)

40 (21.2)

0.204

Self-Reported Health

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

120 (27.6)

131 (23.7)

70 (25.5)

19 (25.1)

0.667

Health Literacy

Limited (<4)

Adequate (>4)

UNK

121 (30.0)

191 (22.4)

28 (26.5)

0.032

EOL-end of life, HS = High School, K = Thousand US Dollars UNK = Unknown

Download PDF

Reviewers invited by journal
24 Feb, 2021
Reviews received at journal
24 Feb, 2021
Editor invited by journal
14 Feb, 2021
First submitted to journal
18 Jan, 2021

You are reading this latest preprint version

Greater preferences for death in hospital and mechanical ventilation at the end of life among non-whites recently diagnosed with cancer

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Declarations

References

Tables

Status:

Version 1