Higher Admittance to Specialized Palliative Care for Patients with High Education and Income: A Nationwide Register-Based Study.

Background: While associations between socioeconomic position, that is, income and education and admittance to specialized palliative care (SPC) have been investigated previously, no prior national studies have examined admittance to all types of SPC, that is, hospital-based palliative care team/units and hospice. Aim: To investigate whether cancer patients' education and income were associated with admittance to SPC (hospital-based palliative care team/unit, hospice). Design: Data sources were several nationwide registers. The association between SPC and education and income, respectively, was investigated using logistic regression analyses. Setting/Participants: Patients dying from cancer in Denmark 2010-12 (n = 41,741). Results: In the study population, 45% had lower secondary school, and 6% had an academic education. Patients with an academic education were more often admitted to SPC than those having lower secondary school (odds ratio [OR] = 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.51-1.89). Patients in the highest income quartile (Q4) were more often admitted than those in the lowest income quartile (Q1) (OR = 1.46; 95% CI: 1.37-1.56). This association was stronger for hospice (OR = 1.67 (95% CI: 1.54-1.81)) than for admittance to hospital-based palliative care team/unit (OR = 1.23 (95% CI: 1.14-1.31)). Compared with patients who had lower secondary school and the lowest income, the OR of admittance to SPC among the most affluent academics was 1.96 (95% CI: 1.71-2.25). Conclusion: This nationwide study indicates that admittance to SPC was clearly associated with education and income. We believe that the associations indicate inequity. Initiatives to improve access for patients with low education or income should be established.

Cohabitation Status Influenced Admittance to Specialized Palliative Care for Cancer Patients: A Nationwide Study from the Danish Palliative Care Database.

BACKGROUND: The utilization of the health care system varies in relation to cohabitation status, but conflicting results have been found in studies investigating the association in relation to specialized palliative care (SPC). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between cohabitation status and admittance to SPC; to establish whether this association differed between hospital-based palliative care team/units (mainly outpatient/home care) and hospice (mainly inpatient care). DESIGN: A nationwide study based on the Danish Palliative Care Database, which is linked with additional registers. MEASUREMENTS: The study population included all patients dying from cancer in Denmark between 2010 and 2012 (n = 44,480). The associations were investigated using logistic regression analysis adjusted for sex, age, diagnosis, and geography and standardized absolute prevalences. RESULTS: Comparison with cohabiting patients showed that overall admittance to SPC was lowest among patients who were widows/widowers (odds ratio [OR] = 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81-0.91) and those who had never married (OR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.68-0.80). Patients living alone were more likely to be admitted to a hospice [e.g., divorced OR = 1.41 (95% CI: 1.31-1.52)] than to a hospital-based palliative care team/unit [e.g., never married OR = 0.64 (95% CI: 0.59-0.70)] compared with cohabiting patients. Standardized prevalences of overall admittance to SPC showed a similar pattern, for example, admittance was highest (41%) for patients cohabiting and lowest (30%) for patients who had never married. CONCLUSION: Cohabiting individuals were favored in admittance to SPC. Compared with cohabiting patients it is unlikely that patients living alone have lower needs for SPC: results point toward inequity in admittance to specialist health care, a problem that should be addressed.

[Surgery patients' intake of herbal preparations and dietary supplements]. / Kirurgiske patienters indtagelse af naturlaegemidler og kosttilskud.

INTRODUCTION: Herbal medicine is being frequently used by patients around the world. Several products may interact with ordinary medicine, so it is important for doctors to know what kind of herbal medicines their patients take. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire was given to presurgery patients during a two-month period. RESULTS: A total of 115 consecutive patients responded, 69 women (60%) and 46 men (40%). 50.4% had taken or still took herbal medicine, with the following distribution of gender: women 69.8%, men 30.2%. The age group was 18-82 years. The frequently used herbal medicines were fish oil, ginkgo, Echinacea, Co-Q10, garlic, and hip. Twenty-five patients took nutritional supplements with the following spread of gender: 84% women and 16% men. The frequently used nutritional supplements were Gerimax, LongoVital, and Melbrosia. Not all patients would inform their doctor about their use of herbal medicine. 28.6% retained information because of the doctor and 64.3%, did not perceive herbal medicine as "real medicine". DISCUSSION: It is important for anaesthesiologists to know what specific kind of herbal medicines patients are using before they anaesthetize them as interactions between herbal medicine and anaesthesia are prevalent. Anaesthesiologists have to ask specific questions to receive full information regarding herbal medicines during the preoperative period.