Skip to main content

Table 5 Statistically significant relationships between number and content of contacts and patient and organizational characteristicsā€ 

From: Case management in primary palliative care is associated more strongly with organisational than with patient characteristics: results from a cross-sectional prospective study

Ā 

Patient

Organization

Care

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 

Affiliation of the case manager:

Target group:

Ā 
Ā 

Ageā€ ā€ 

Sex femaleā€ ā€ 

Living situation aloneā€ ā€ 

At least one additional diagnosisā€ ā€ 

Functional statusā€ ā€ 

Start of case manage-mentā€ ā€ 

Home care organi-zationā€ ā€ 

Hospiceā€ ā€ 

From life prolonging care onwardsā€ ā€ 

Only palliative care patientsā€ ā€ 

Number of contacts

Number of contacts

Ā 

1.12 (1.01 ā€“ 1.24)

Ā Ā 

0.89 (0.85 ā€“ 0.93)

1.22 (1.08 ā€“ 1.38)

0.54 (0.41 ā€“ 0.71)

0.57 (0.50 ā€“ 0.66)

0.71 (0.62 ā€“ 0.82)

0.65 (0.49 ā€“ 0.86)

Ā 

Number of conversations about:

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 

- physical complaints

Ā Ā Ā Ā 

0.96 (0.93 ā€“ 0.98)

Ā 

1.47 (1.37 ā€“ 1.58)

1.52 (1.40 ā€“ 1.65)

Ā Ā 

1.12 (1.12 ā€“ 1.13)

- psychological aspects

Ā Ā 

0.87 (0.79 ā€“ 0.96)

Ā 

0.95 (0.91 ā€“ 0.98)

Ā 

1.22 (0.97 ā€“ 1.53)

1.14 (1.01 ā€“ 1.28)

0.87 (0.77 ā€“ 0.98)

1.01 (0.80 ā€“ 1.27)

1.10 (1.09 ā€“ 1.11)

- life expectancy

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 

1.40 (1.25 ā€“ 1.56)

1.04 (0.95 ā€“ 1.14)

1.08 (1.07 ā€“ 1.09)

- incurability of disease

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 

1.69 (1.37 ā€“ 2.10)

0.90 (0.81 ā€“ 1.01)

1.54 (1.38 ā€“ 1.73)

1.68 (1.34 ā€“ 2.09)

1.08 (1.07 ā€“ 1.08)

- possibilities of palliative care

1.01 (1.00 ā€“ 1.01)

Ā 

0.90 (0.82 ā€“ 0.99)

Ā Ā 

0.81 (0.73 ā€“ 0.89)

1.08 (0.98 ā€“ 1.20)

1.47 (1.31 ā€“ 1.67)

Ā Ā 

1.07 (1.06 ā€“ 1.07)

- medical treatment(s)

1.00 (0.99 ā€“ 1.00)

Ā Ā Ā 

0.92 (0.89 ā€“ 0.96)

1.24 (1.12 ā€“ 1.37)

1.48 (1.19 ā€“ 1.86)

1.20 (1.07 ā€“ 1.36)

1.16 (1.03 ā€“ 1.30)

1.13 (0.90 ā€“ 1.42)

1.08 (1.07 ā€“ 1.09)

- social aspects

Ā Ā Ā Ā 

0.94 (0.91 ā€“ 0.98)

0.89 (0.79 ā€“ 1.00)

1.14 (0.88 ā€“ 1.48)

1.39 (1.21 ā€“ 1.59)

0.74 (0.65 ā€“ 0.85)

1.07 (0.82 ā€“ 1.40)

1.07 (1.06 ā€“ 1.08)

- main diagnosis

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 

1.09 (1.00 ā€“ 1.18)

1.84 (1.52 ā€“ 2.23)

0.95 (0.86 ā€“ 1.06)

1.36 (1.23 ā€“ 1.50)

1.22 (1.00 ā€“ 1.49)

1.03 (1.03 ā€“ 1.04)

- burden of treatment(s)

0.99 (0.99 ā€“ 1.00)

Ā 

1.11 (1.00 ā€“ 1.23)

Ā 

0.93 (0.89 ā€“ 0.97)

1.22 (1.09 ā€“ 1.36)

1.62 (1.27 ā€“ 2.06)

1.52 (1.33 ā€“ 1.73)

1.25 (1.10 ā€“ 1.43)

1.21 (0.94 ā€“ 1.56)

1.07 (1.06 ā€“ 1.08)

- spiritual aspects

Ā Ā 

0.88 (0.80 ā€“ 0.97)

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 

0.79 (0.70 ā€“ 0.86)

0.90 (0.82 ā€“ 0.99)

1.05 (1.04 ā€“ 1.06)

- possible medical complications

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 

1.35 (1.24 ā€“ 1.47)

1.27 (1.15 ā€“ 1.40)

Ā Ā 

1.04 (1.04 ā€“ 1.05)

  1. ā€  Nā€‰=ā€‰662, number of missing values range from 0 to 24. Reported are unstandardized regression coefficients with 95Ā % confidence intervals. All dependent variables were logtransformed due to skewed data, and can therefore be interpreted like odds ratios. In the presented models all variables have p-values of 0.05 or below (the affiliation of the case manager and the target group of the organization are both nominal variables, all categories are reported when at least one of them has a p-value of 0.05 or below). ā€ ā€  Reference groups in analyses: Sex maleā€‰=ā€‰reference; Living situation not aloneā€‰=ā€‰reference; No additional diagnosisā€‰=ā€‰reference; Start of case management late in disease trajectoryā€‰=ā€‰reference; Affiliation is collaboration between institutionsā€‰=ā€‰reference; Target group of organization from curative care onwardsā€‰=ā€‰reference. For functional status higher scoreā€‰=ā€‰lower status (in TableĀ 4; the higher the score and therefore the lower the status, the less conversations on a topic)