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

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.

[1]  J. Bensing,et al.  Monitoring health inequalities through general practice: the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice. , 2005, European journal of public health.

[2]  J. Lynn,et al.  End-of-life care and outcomes. , 2004, Evidence report/technology assessment.

[3]  B. Onwuteaka-Philipsen,et al.  Euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands in 1990, 1995, and 2001 , 2003, The Lancet.

[4]  L. Deliens,et al.  End-of-life decision-making in six European countries: descriptive study , 2003, The Lancet.

[5]  L. George Research design in end-of-life research: state of science. , 2002, The Gerontologist.

[6]  C. Todd,et al.  Defining patients as palliative: hospital doctors' versus general practitioners' perceptions , 2002, Palliative medicine.

[7]  N. Christakis,et al.  Extent and determinants of error in doctors' prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  J. Teno,et al.  For every numerator, you need a denominator: a simple statement but key to measuring the quality of care of the "dying". , 1999, Journal of pain and symptom management.

[9]  A. Ezzat,et al.  Book review: National cancer control programmes, policies and managerial guidelines. , 1996, Annals of Saudi medicine.

[10]  B. Sibbald,et al.  Telephone versus postal surveys of general practitioners: methodological considerations. , 1994, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[11]  M. Pringle,et al.  The International Classification of Primary Care in the European Community , 1994 .

[12]  C. Akinsanya Cancer pain relief and palliative care , 1992 .

[13]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Practical statistics for medical research , 1990 .

[14]  J. Regan,et al.  Terminal care in the home--the general practice perspective. , 2001, Irish medical journal.

[15]  T. Walsh Irish Journal of Medical Science: one year on , 2001 .

[16]  F. Harrell,et al.  Defining the "terminally ill": insights from SUPPORT. , 1996, Duquesne law review.