Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11029675›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2000

End-of-life decision making: a qualitative study of elderly individuals.

K E Rosenfeld, N S Wenger, M Kagawa-Singer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Values, preferences and goals identified during shared decision making between critically ill patients and their doctors.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

K E RosenfeldDivision of General Internal Medicine, Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA 90073, USA. kenneth.rosenfeld@med.va.gov
N S Wenger
M Kagawa-Singer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify the desired features of end-of-life medical decision making from the perspective of elderly individuals.

designQualitative study using in-depth interviews and analysis from a phenomenologic perspective.

settingA senior center and a multilevel retirement community in Los Angeles.

participantsTwenty-one elderly informants (mean age 83 years) representing a spectrum of functional status and prior experiences with end-of-life decision making. MAIN

resultsInformants were concerned primarily with the outcomes of serious illness rather than the medical interventions that might be used, and defined treatments as desirable to the extent they could return the patient to his or her valued life activities. Advanced age was a relevant consideration in decision making, guided by concerns about personal losses and the meaning of having lived a "full life." Decision-making authority was granted both to physicians (for their technical expertise) and family members (for their concern for the patient's interests), and shifted from physician to family as the patient's prognosis for functional recovery became grim. Expressions of care, both by patients and family members, were often important contributors to end-of-life treatment decisions.

conclusionsThese findings suggest that advance directives and physician-patient discussions that focus on acceptable health states and valued life activities may be better suited to patients' end-of-life care goals than those that focus on specific medical interventions, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We propose a model of collaborative surrogate decision making by families and physicians that encourages physicians to assume responsibility for recommending treatment plans, including the provision or withholding of specific life-sustaining treatments, when such recommendations are consistent with patients' and families' goals for care.

Indexed as

Decision MakingTerminal CareAgedAged, 80 and overHumansPatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsProfessional-Family RelationsPrognosisProxyQuality of LifeDeath and EuthanasiaEmpirical ApproachProfessional Patient Relationship

Identifiers

PMID11029675
PMCPMC1495587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.