Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23908751›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics and history of medicine2011

Euthanasia attitude; A comparison of two scales.

Naser Aghababaei, Hojjatollah Farahani, Javad Hatami

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Naser AghababaeiMA in General Psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran;
Hojjatollah Farahani
Javad Hatami

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The main purposes of the present study were to see how the term "euthanasia" influences people's support for or opposition to euthanasia; and to see how euthanasia attitude relates to religious orientation and personality factors. In this study two different euthanasia attitude scales were compared. 197 students were selected to fill out either the Euthanasia Attitude Scale (EAS) or Wasserman's Attitude Towards Euthanasia scale (ATE scale). The former scale includes the term "euthanasia", the latter does not. All participants filled out 50 items of International Personality Item Pool, 16 items of the the HEXACO openness, and 14 items of Religious Orientation Scale-Revised. Results indicated that even though the two groups were not different in terms of gender, age, education, religiosity and personality, mean score on the ATE scale was significantly higher than that of the EAS. Euthanasia attitude was negatively correlated with religiosity and conscientiousness and it was positively correlated with psychoticism and openness. It can be concluded that analyzing the attitude towards euthanasia with the use of EAS rather than the ATE scale results in lower levels of opposition against euthanasia. This study raises the question of whether euthanasia attitude scales should contain definitions and concepts of euthanasia or they should describe cases of it.

Indexed as

Attitude towards euthanasiaEuthanasiaPersonality

Identifiers

PMID23908751
PMCPMC3713934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.