RESUMO
Background: During the coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) pandemic, health systems had to respond to the needs of COVID-19 patients, while caring for patients with other life-threatening conditions. Pandemics, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, stir global health and mortality patterns. This is likely to include trends in dying places. In this paper, we examine trends in place of death for adults in 32 countries, comparing the initial COVID-19 pandemic years (2020-2021) with the eight years before the pandemic (2012-2019). Methods: Data on place of death for all adults (18 years and over) that died from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2021 were requested (47 countries approached, 32 included). The classification of place of death varied widely between countries. "Home" was the most common category, the remaining category groups comprised "hospital or health institution", "other defined", and "ill-defined". We analysed place of death data in an aggregate form, by sex, age group, and selected underlying causes of death (cancer, dementia, and COVID-19). Findings: The study included 100.7 million people (51.5% male, 68.0% with ≥70 years), 20.4% died from cancer and 5.8% from dementia; 30.8% of deaths took place at home. The percentage of home deaths rose from 30.1% in 2012-2013 to 30.9% in 2018-2019 and further to 32.2% in the pandemic (2020-2021). Home deaths increased during the pandemic in 23 countries. In most countries the rise was greater in women and cancer; age differences were not consistent. Interpretation: Our study shows that there was a rise in home deaths during the pandemic, but with variability across countries, sex, age, and causes of death. The sex difference observed in most countries may have several explanations, including more engagement of women in discussions about end of life care planning and hospital admission avoidance. A higher rise of home deaths among people dying of cancer may be explained by the more predictable disease trajectory compared to non-malignant conditions, as well as earlier and better integrated palliative care. Funding: This work is part of the EOLinPLACE Project, which has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 948609).
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: For most of history, the majority of people died at home surrounded by family. However, the global scenario has progressively changed towards hospital death and more recently in some countries back again towards home, with indication that COVID-19 may have further increased the number of home deaths. It is therefore timely to establish the state-of-the-art about people's preferences for place of end-of-life care and death, to understand the full spectrum of preferences, nuances and commonalities worldwide. This protocol describes the methods for an umbrella review which aims to examine and synthesise the available evidence regarding preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search for relevant systematic reviews (quantitative and/or qualitative) in six databases from inception without language restrictions: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PROSPERO and Epistemonikos. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for umbrella reviews, eligibility screening, data extraction and quality assessment (using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist) will be done by two independent reviewers. We will report the screening process using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram. Study double-counting will be reported using the Graphical Representation of Overlap for OVErviews tool. A narrative synthesis will include 'Summary of Evidence' tables to address five review questions (distribution of preferences and reasons, influencing variables, place of care vs place of death, changes over time, congruence between preferred and actual places), grading the evidence on each question using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and/or GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethical approval. The results will be presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022339983.