THE VALUE OF PALLIATIVE CARE IN ONCOLOGY: A CROSS-SECTIONAL EQ-5D-5L UTILITY ANALYSIS OF PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN GREECE
Author(s)
Konstantinos Karaplanis, MBA1, Ioannis John Yfantopoulos, II, DPhil2.
1Univesrity of Athens, Athens, Greece, 2Professor of Health Economics, University of Athens, Ekali, Greece.
1Univesrity of Athens, Athens, Greece, 2Professor of Health Economics, University of Athens, Ekali, Greece.
OBJECTIVES: To assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in oncology patients receiving palliative care and to evaluate the impact of care setting on patient-reported utility scores using EQ-5D-5L derived health utilities.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study included a consecutive sample of 60 oncology patients receiving palliative care at the "Galilee" Palliative Care Unit in Greece. HRQoL data were collected via guided interviews using the EQ-5D-5L instrument. Utility scores were estimated using the official Greek value set. Differences in utility scores across care settings (Home Care, Day Care, Hospice) and patient demographics were assessed using ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests, as appropriate for data distribution. Ethical standards and GDPR regulations were strictly maintained.
RESULTS: The total sample reported a mean utility of 0.218 (SD= 0.351). No statistically significant associations were observed between utility scores and socioeconomic characteristics (gender, age, education, economic status; p > 0.05). Conversely, the care setting was a statistically significant determinant of utility (p < 0.001). Patients receiving home care and day care reported higher mean utilities (0.355 and 0.365, respectively), whereas hospice patients presented with a lower mean utility (0.017). Dimension-level analysis identified limitations in mobility, self-care, and usual activities as the primary drivers of utility decrement (p < 0.001), while pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression showed no significant variation across settings, suggesting effective symptom management.
CONCLUSIONS: Different palliative care settings are associated with distinct utility profiles. Home and day care models are associated with higher utility scores, while hospice care reflects more severe functional impairment in terminal stages. Given the cross-sectional design, observed associations should not be interpreted as causal effects. These findings highlight the critical role of care model selection in optimizing patient outcomes and provide evidence for the value of tailored palliative care interventions.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study included a consecutive sample of 60 oncology patients receiving palliative care at the "Galilee" Palliative Care Unit in Greece. HRQoL data were collected via guided interviews using the EQ-5D-5L instrument. Utility scores were estimated using the official Greek value set. Differences in utility scores across care settings (Home Care, Day Care, Hospice) and patient demographics were assessed using ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests, as appropriate for data distribution. Ethical standards and GDPR regulations were strictly maintained.
RESULTS: The total sample reported a mean utility of 0.218 (SD= 0.351). No statistically significant associations were observed between utility scores and socioeconomic characteristics (gender, age, education, economic status; p > 0.05). Conversely, the care setting was a statistically significant determinant of utility (p < 0.001). Patients receiving home care and day care reported higher mean utilities (0.355 and 0.365, respectively), whereas hospice patients presented with a lower mean utility (0.017). Dimension-level analysis identified limitations in mobility, self-care, and usual activities as the primary drivers of utility decrement (p < 0.001), while pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression showed no significant variation across settings, suggesting effective symptom management.
CONCLUSIONS: Different palliative care settings are associated with distinct utility profiles. Home and day care models are associated with higher utility scores, while hospice care reflects more severe functional impairment in terminal stages. Given the cross-sectional design, observed associations should not be interpreted as causal effects. These findings highlight the critical role of care model selection in optimizing patient outcomes and provide evidence for the value of tailored palliative care interventions.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
CO22
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Epidemiology & Public Health, Methodological & Statistical Research
Topic Subcategory
Clinical Outcomes Assessment
Disease
Oncology