Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 904

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Place of Care in Advanced Cancer: A Qualitative Systematic Literature Review of Patient Preferences

Higginson, I.J., Sen-Gupta, G.J.A.·2000·Journal of Palliative Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is commonly written that more patients wish to die at home than currently achieve this. However, the evidence for preferences for place of terminal care and death has not been systematically reviewed. AIM: To carry out a systematic literature review of the preferences for place of care and death among advanced cancer patients. METHOD: Studies were identified using systematic database searches of MEDLINE (1966-1999), PsychLit (1974-1999), and Bath Information Data Service (BIDS) (1981-1999). Studies were assessed and data extracted and synthesises following the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines, grading studies according to design and rigor of methods. Studies of preferences in the general population and of groups including cancer patients and/or their caregivers were included. RESULTS: Eighteen studies determining preferences in either the general population or groups including cancer patients were identified. Views were obtained prospectively and retrospectively from patients, the general population, families, and professionals. Respondents indicated preferences for home death (range 49%-100%), except one study of patients in the care of a continuing care team in London where only 25%-29% of patients wanted a home death, and inpatient hospice was the most favored option. However, the response rate of this study was not known. Among the general public there was a higher preference for inpatient hospice care among in people with recent experience of a close friend or relative's death or dying. Where the views of patients, families, and professionals were compared, all respondents broadly agreed although patients expressed the strongest home preferences. Only 2 of the studies provided longitudinal data, and 9 of the 18 had major deficits in design or reporting, such as poor or unknown response rate, unclear or unsystematic methods of eliciting preferences or other sample or measurement bias. However, sensitivity analysis of only the more robust and larger studies did not alter the finding of a preference for home care at the end of life in over 50% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Home care is the most common preference, with inpatient hospice care as second preference in advanced illness. Meeting these preferences could be important outcomes for services. Study designs in this area need to be improved.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/jpm.2000.3.287

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 904

Metadata

Authors
Higginson, I. J., & Sen-Gupta, G. J. A.
Venue
Journal of Palliative Medicine
Published
2000-09
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
287-300
ISSN
  • 1096-6218 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7740
OpenAlex
W2014373578
Cited by
904
References
0
FWCI
0.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Place of Care in Advanced Cancer: A Qualitative Systematic Literature Review of Patient Preferences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/jpm.2000.3.287
The paper
Higginson, I. J., & Sen-Gupta, G. J. A. (2000). Place of Care in Advanced Cancer: A Qualitative Systematic Literature Review of Patient Preferences. Journal of Palliative Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2000.3.287

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.