Background There is increasing recognition that patients with non-malignant diseases have comparable physical and psychosocial symptom burden to patients with cancer. There is currently limited data directly comparing symptom burden between these patient groups.
Objective To investigate differences in symptom burden between patients with malignant and non-malignant conditions admitted to a palliative care unit (PCU).
Method A cross-sectional study involving 186 patients admitted to a PCU was undertaken. Patients were dichotomised into malignant or non-malignant disease categories. Symptom burden at admission was assessed using the Symptom Assessment Scale and Palliative Care Problem Severity Score. Group differences in symptoms were analysed using univariate and multivariate approaches.
Results One hundred patients (53.8%) had cancer, with upper gastrointestinal the most common type (18.0%). Among the 86 patients with non-malignant disease, neurological conditions were most prevalent (40.7%). Patients admitted with non-malignant diseases were older, more functionally impaired and more likely to be deteriorating or terminal. A malignant diagnosis was associated with a higher likelihood of clinician-assessed pain, patient-assessed pain, fatigue, psychological/spiritual symptoms and other symptoms. However, when adjusted for confounders, disease category ceased to be a significant predictor of symptom burden. Younger patients experienced worse pain and patients in terminal phase experienced less symptom burden.
Conclusion Symptom burden was similar between patients with malignant and non-malignant disease after adjustment for confounders. Further research is needed to understand the palliative care needs of patients with non-malignant disease.
- symptoms and symptom management
- chronic conditions
- clinical assessment
- end of life care
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors DS, BL and PE planned and conducted the study. DS and AG conducted statistical analysis. DS wrote the manuscript. DS, BL, AG and PE reviewed the manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at RMH (ID: QA2016140).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.