Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23472122›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

End-of-life decisions: a cross-national study of treatment preference discussions and surrogate decision-maker appointments.

Natalie Evans, H Roeline Pasman, Tomás Vega Alonso, Lieve Van den Block, Guido Miccinesi, Viviane Van Casteren, Gé Donker, Stefano Bertolissi, Oscar Zurriaga, Luc Deliens and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Natalie EvansDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. n.evans@vumc.nl
H Roeline Pasman
Tomás Vega Alonso
Lieve Van den Block
Guido Miccinesi
Viviane Van Casteren
Gé Donker
Stefano Bertolissi
Oscar Zurriaga
Luc Deliens
Bregje Onwuteaka-Philipsen
EUROIMPACT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMaking treatment decisions in anticipation of possible future incapacity is an important part of patient participation in end-of-life decision-making. This study estimates and compares the prevalence of GP-patient end-of-life treatment discussions and patients' appointment of surrogate decision-makers in Italy, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands and examines associated factors.

methodsA cross-sectional, retrospective survey was conducted with representative GP networks in four countries. GPs recorded the health and care characteristics in the last three months of life of 4,396 patients who died non-suddenly. Prevalences were estimated and logistic regressions were used to examine between country differences and country-specific associated patient and care factors.

resultsGP-patient discussion of treatment preferences occurred for 10%, 7%, 25% and 47% of Italian, Spanish, Belgian and of Dutch patients respectively. Furthermore, 6%, 5%, 16% and 29% of Italian, Spanish, Belgian and Dutch patients had a surrogate decision-maker. Despite some country-specific differences, previous GP-patient discussion of primary diagnosis, more frequent GP contact, GP provision of palliative care, the importance of palliative care as a treatment aim and place of death were positively associated with preference discussions or surrogate appointments. A diagnosis of dementia was negatively associated with preference discussions and surrogate appointments.

conclusionsThe study revealed a higher prevalence of treatment preference discussions and surrogate appointments in the two northern compared to the two southern European countries. Factors associated with preference discussions and surrogate appointments suggest that delaying diagnosis discussions impedes anticipatory planning, whereas early preference discussions, particularly for dementia patients, and the provision of palliative care encourage participation.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAdvance DirectivesAgedAged, 80 and overBelgiumCross-Sectional StudiesDeathFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsNetherlandsPalliative Care

Identifiers

PMID23472122
PMCPMC3589464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.