A Population-Based Mortality Follow-Back Survey Evaluating Good Death for Cancer and Noncancer Patients: A Randomized Feasibility Study |
| |
| Authors: | Yoko Nakazawa Emi Takeuchi Mitsunori Miyashita Kazuki Sato Asao Ogawa Hiroya Kinoshita Yoshiyuki Kizawa Tatsuya Morita Masashi Kato |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Division of Medical Support and Partnership, Center for Cancer Control and Information Services, National Cancer Center, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan;2. Department of Palliative Nursing, Health Sciences, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan;3. Department of Nursing, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya Higashi-ku, Aichi, Japan;4. Division of Psycho-Oncology, Exploratory Oncology Research and Clinical Trial Center, National Cancer Center, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan;5. Department of Palliative Care, Tokatu Hospital, Nagareyama, Chiba, Japan;6. Division of Palliative Medicine, Kobe University Hospital, Kobe University School of Medicine, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan;7. Department of Palliative and Supportive Care, Palliative Care Team, and Seirei Hospice, Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, Japan;1. ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;2. Division of Biostatistics, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;3. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;4. Department of Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada;1. University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, New South Wales, Australia;2. St Vincent Hospital, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia;3. Calvary Hospital, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia;4. University of Notre Dame Australia, New South Wales, Australia;5. University of New South Wales, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia;1. Division of Hematology & Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;3. Division of Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;1. Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber/Partners CancerCare, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;2. Division of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Dana-Farber/Partners CancerCare, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;3. Susan F. Smith Center for Women''s Cancers, Dana-Farber/Partners CancerCare, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;4. Division of Medical Oncology, University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA;5. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA;6. Division of Medical Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA;7. Division of Medical Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;8. Department of Nursing, Dana-Farber/Partners CancerCare, Boston, Massachusetts, USA;1. Department of Psycho-Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan;2. Behavioral Sciences and Survivorship Research Group, Division of Health Care Research, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center Japan, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan;3. Innovation Center for Supportive, Palliative and Psychosocial Care, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan;4. Behavioral Sciences and Survivorship Research Group, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center Japan, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan;5. Division of Biostatistics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan;6. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan;7. Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan;8. Department of Head and Neck Surgery, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan;9. Department of Esophageal Surgery, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan;10. Department of Colorectal Surgery, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan;11. Department of Musculoskeletal Oncology and Rehabilitation, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan;12. Department of Gynecology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan;13. Department of Urology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan;14. Department of Psycho-Oncology, Cancer Institute Hospital of JFCR, Koto-ku, Japan |
| |
| Abstract: | ContextEvaluation of end-of-life care is a key element in quality improvement, and population-based mortality follow-back designs have been used in several countries. This design was adapted to evaluate a good death in Japan.ObjectivesThis study aimed to explain the scientific background and rationale for assessing the feasibility of a mortality follow-back survey using a randomized design.DesignWe used a cross-sectional questionnaire survey to assess feasibility using response rate, sample representativeness, effect on response rate with two methods, and survey acceptability.Setting/ParticipantsThe subjects were 4812 bereaved family members of patients who died from the major five causes of death: cancer, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, pneumonia, or kidney failure, using mortality data.ResultsOverall, 682 (14.2%) questionnaires could not be delivered, and 2294 (55.5%) family members agreed to participate in the survey. There was little difference in the distribution of characteristics between the study subjects and the full population, and sample representativeness was acceptable. Sending the questionnaire with a pen achieved a higher response rate than without (weighted: 48.2% vs. 40.8%; P < 0.001). In follow-up contact, there was no difference in response rate between resending the questionnaire and a reminder letter alone (weighted: 32.9% vs. 32.4%; P = 0.803). In total, 84.8% (weighted) of the participants agreed with improving quality of care through this kind of survey.ConclusionThis study demonstrated the feasibility of conducting a population-based mortality follow-back survey using a randomized design. An attached pen with the questionnaire was effective in improving the response rate. |
| |
| Keywords: | Palliative care good death quality of care caregiver evaluation feasibility |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
