Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24618410›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2014

Death talk: gender differences in talking about one's own impending death.

Bragi Skulason, Arna Hauksdottir, Kozma Ahcic, Asgeir R Helgason

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06046261 (Exploring the Impact of " ACP Board Game for Life" on Death Preparation and Anxiety in Patients With Stage 4 and 5 Chronic Kidney Diseases), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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.

NCT06046261 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Exploring the Impact of " ACP Board Game for Life" on Death Preparation and Anxiety in Patients With Stage 4 and 5 Chronic Kidney Diseases: A Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorNational Cheng-Kung University HospitalRan2022 to 2023Enrolled69ConditionsChronic Kidney Disease, Chronic Renal Failure, Chronic Renal Insufficiency, End of Life CareArmsACP board game for life
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Let us talk about death: gender effects in cancer patients' preferences for end-of-life discussions.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. The Shady Pink Elephant: End of Life Education for Young Women Affected by Breast Cancer.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2020
    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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Bragi SkulasonUniversity of Iceland, Saemundargata 2, Reykjavik IS101, Iceland. bragi@landspitali.is.
Arna Hauksdottir
Kozma Ahcic
Asgeir R Helgason
Reykjavík University · ISStockholm County Council · SEUniversity of Gothenburg · SEUniversity of Iceland · IS

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccording to common practice based on a generally agreed interpretation of Icelandic law on the rights of patients, health care professionals cannot discuss prognosis and treatment with a patient's family without that patient's consent. This limitation poses ethical problems, because research has shown that, in the absence of insight and communication regarding a patient's impending death, patient's significant others may subsequently experience long-term psychological distress. It is also reportedly important for most dying patients to know that health care personnel are comfortable with talking about death and dying. There is only very limited information concerning gender differences regarding death talk in terminal care patients.

methodsThis is a retrospective analysis of detailed prospective "field notes" from chaplain interviews of all patients aged 30-75 years receiving palliative care and/or with DNR (do not resuscitate) written on their charts who requested an interview with a hospital chaplain during a period of 3 years. After all study patients had died, these notes were analyzed to assess the prevalence of patient-initiated discussions regarding their own impending death and whether non-provocative evocation-type interventions had facilitated such communication.

resultsDuring the 3-year study period, 195 interviews (114 men, 81 women) were conducted. According to the field notes, 80% of women and 30% of men initiated death talk within the planned 30-minute interviews. After evoking interventions, 59% (67/114) of men and 91% (74/81) of women engaged in death talk. Even with these interventions, at the end of the first interview gender differences were still statistically significant (p = 0.001). By the end of the second interview gender difference was less, but still statistically significant (p = 0.001).

conclusionsGender differences in terminal care communication may be radically reduced by using simple evocation methods that are relatively unpretentious, but require considerable clinical training.Men in terminal care are more reluctant than women to enter into discussion regarding their own impending death in clinical settings. Intervention based on non-provocative evocation methods may increase death talk in both genders, the relative increase being higher for men.

Identifiers

PMID24618410
PMCPMC3975272
OpenAlexW2113487955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.