Table 5 Results of the ordinal logistic regression model
Variables | OR1 | 90% CI | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Place where the patient died | ||||
Home (reference) | ||||
Hospital | 1.18 | (0.50; | 2.79) | 0.74 |
Clarity in the information received by the doctor | ||||
Yes (reference) | ||||
No | 2.26 | (1.21; | 4.19) | 0.03* |
Palliative care modality | ||||
Domiciliary (reference) | ||||
Ambulatory | 3.05 | (1.05; | 8.88) | 0.09* |
Hospitalized | 1.42 | (0.47; | 4.30) | 0.60 |
Did not receive | 1.56 | (0.40; | 6.08) | 0.59 |
Procedures inconsistent with the wishes | ||||
No (reference) | ||||
Yes | 2.92 | (1.28; | 6.70) | 0.03* |
Treatments to prolong of life | ||||
No (reference) | ||||
Yes | 0.98 | (0.46; | 2.09) | 0.97 |
Prolongation of life during the dying process | ||||
No (reference) | ||||
Yes | 1.44 | (0.75; | 2.74) | 0.36 |
Greater suffering due to prolongation of life | ||||
No (reference) | ||||
Yes | 1.33 | (0.62; | 2.84) | 0.53 |
Type of cancer | ||||
Solid (reference) | ||||
Hematological | 0.52 | (0.21; | 1.31) | 0.24 |
Rural/urban residence of patient | ||||
Urban (reference) | ||||
Municipal head | 1.01 | (0.40; | 2.54) | 0.99 |
Scattered rural | 0.58 | (0.27; | 1.26) | 0.25 |
Importance of religion for the caregiver | ||||
Very important (reference) | ||||
Important | 1.24 | (0.68; | 2.26) | 0.55 |
Not important | 3.32 | (0.79; | 13.91) | 0.17 |
Caregiver´s relationship with the patient | ||||
Partner (reference) | ||||
Father/mother/son/daughter | 0.96 | (0.44; | 2.07) | 0.93 |
Brother/sister | 0.47 | (0.14; | 1.59) | 0.31 |
Other | 1.53 | (0.41; | 5.61) | 0.59 |
Patient age | ||||
Age 75–93 (reference) | ||||
Age 18–44 | 3.80 | (1.33; | 10.84) | 0.04* |
Age 45–59 | 0.77 | (0.34; | 1.71) | 0.58 |
Age 60–74 | 0.61 | (0.30; | 1.24) | 0.25 |
Coliving with the patient | ||||
No (reference) | ||||
Yes | 0.56 | (0.30; | 1.04) | 0.12 |
Patient had partner | ||||
Yes (reference) | ||||
No | 1.93 | (1.01; | 3.67) | 0.09* |