Abstract
Background: This study was conducted within the Qassim Health Cluster as part of efforts to operationalize the Saudi Model of Care (SMoC). It aims to evaluate the outcomes and value of palliative care services in alignment with SMoC by applying patient-centered measurement tools. In Saudi Arabia, Vision 2030 has spurred significant expansion in palliative care, yet challenges persist in home-based care and consistent outcome measurement. Current Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) methodologies often fail to capture patient-centered dimensions (emotional, spiritual, and social support), leading to gaps in outcome assessments. Methods: This cross-sectional descriptive study characterized 147 oncology palliative care patients in Qassim, Saudi Arabia, from January to December 2024. Data on demographics, diagnoses, care duration, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and patient experiences were collected via face-to-face interviews. Although QALY was conceptually referenced, the study utilized EQ-5D-5L as a proxy measure for patient-perceived health status. Results: The cohort was predominantly older females (64.63%) with various cancer diagnoses, primarily breast cancer (29.25%), and a long duration of palliative care. Patients reported significant impairments in mobility (21.77%), self-care, daily activities, and a high prevalence of pain and anxiety/depression. However, most felt respected by their care team (85.71%), experienced effective symptom management (68.03%), and were consistently involved in decision-making (68.03%). Conclusions: This study provides baseline data on oncology palliative care in Qassim, highlighting complex patient needs alongside positive perceptions of care. QALY methodologies must be refined to better capture patient-centered benefits and inform resource allocation, contributing to more responsive and effective palliative care services. However, due to the cross-sectional design, causal relationships between care exposure and outcomes cannot be inferred; hence, the findings should be interpreted as descriptive rather than causal.