The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Heterogeneity and changes in preferences for dying at home: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Home-based models of hospice and palliative care are promoted with the argument that most people prefer to die at home. We examined the heterogeneity in preferences for home death and explored, for the first time, changes of preference with illness progression. METHODS: We searched for studies on adult preferences for place of care at the end of life or place of death in MEDLINE (1966-2011), EMBASE (1980-2011), psycINFO (1967-2011), CINAHL (1982-2011), six palliative care journals (2006-11) and reference lists. Standard criteria were used to grade study quality and evidence strength. Scatter plots showed the percentage preferring home death amongst patients, lay caregivers and general public, by study quality, year, weighted by sample size. RESULTS: 210 studies reported preferences of just over 100,000 people from 33 countries, including 34,021 patients, 19,514 caregivers and 29,926 general public members. 68% of studies with quantitative data were of low quality; only 76 provided the question used to elicit preferences. There was moderate evidence that most people prefer a home death-this was found in 75% of studies, 9/14 of those of high quality. Amongst the latter and excluding outliers, home preference estimates ranged 31% to 87% for patients (9 studies), 25% to 64% for caregivers (5 studies), 49% to 70% for the public (4 studies). 20% of 1395 patients in 10 studies (2 of high quality) changed their preference, but statistical significance was untested. CONCLUSIONS: Controlling for methodological weaknesses, we found evidence that most people prefer to die at home. Around four fifths of patients did not change preference as their illness progressed. This supports focusing on home-based care for patients with advanced illness yet urges policy-makers to secure hospice and palliative care elsewhere for those who think differently or change their mind. Research must be clear on how preferences are elicited. There is an urgent need for studies examining change of preferences towards death.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Projections of Global Mortality and Burden of Disease from 2002 to 2030
Mathers, C. D., & Loncar, D. (2006) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030442 · Cited by 11,386
Appraising the Evidence: Reviewing Disparate Data Systematically
Hawker, S., Payne, S., Kerr, C., Hardey, M., & Powell, J. (2002) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732302238251 · Cited by 1,216
Cited by
Gomes, B., Calanzani, N., Curiale, V., McCrone, P., Higginson, I. J., & de Brito, M. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007760.pub2 · Cited by 785
Self-citationBone, A. E., Gomes, B., Etkind, S. N., Verne, J., Murtagh, F. E., Evans, C. J., & Higginson, I. J. (2018) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1177/0269216317734435 · Cited by 391
Self-citationPreconditions for successful advance care planning in nursing homes: A systematic review.
Gilissen, J., Pivodic, L., Smets, T., Gastmans, C., Vander Stichele, R., Deliens, L., & Van den Block, L. (2017) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.12.003 · Cited by 156
Hoek, P. D., Schers, H. J., Bronkhorst, E. M., Vissers, K. C. P., & Hasselaar, J. G. J. (2017) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0866-9 · Cited by 122
Transitions between health care settings in the final three months of life in four EU countries
Van den Block, L., Pivodic, L., Pardon, K., Donker, G., Miccinesi, G., Moreels, S., Vega Alonso, T., Deliens, L., & Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. (2015) · The European Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckv039 · Cited by 74
Metadata
- Authors
- Gomes, B., Calanzani, N., Gysels, M., Hall, S., & Higginson, I. J.
- Venue
- BMC Palliative Care
- Published
- 2013-02-15
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 7-7
- ISSN
- 1472-684X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2165538120
- Cited by
- 1,029
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Heterogeneity and changes in preferences for dying at home: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1472-684x-12-7
- The paper
- Gomes, B., Calanzani, N., Gysels, M., Hall, S., & Higginson, I. J. (2013). Heterogeneity and changes in preferences for dying at home: a systematic review. BMC Palliative Care. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-684x-12-7
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.