Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26286070›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2015

End-of-life care communications and shared decision-making in Norwegian nursing homes--experiences and perspectives of patients and relatives.

Elisabeth Gjerberg, Lillian Lillemoen, Reidun Førde, Reidar Pedersen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Involvement of Caregivers in the End-of-life Care of an Older Adult Living in a Long-term Care Home: A Qualitative Case Study with Nurses and Relatives.The Canadian journal of nursing research = Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmieres · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Elisabeth GjerbergCentre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, P.b 1130 Blindern, 0318, Oslo, Norway. elisabeth.gjerberg@medisin.uio.no.
Lillian LillemoenCentre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, P.b 1130 Blindern, 0318, Oslo, Norway. lillian.lillemoen@medisin.uio.no.
Reidun FørdeCentre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, P.b 1130 Blindern, 0318, Oslo, Norway. reidun.forde@medisin.uio.no.
Reidar PedersenCentre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, P.b 1130 Blindern, 0318, Oslo, Norway. reidar.pedersen@medisin.uio.no.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInvolving nursing home patients and their relatives in end-of-life care conversations and treatment decisions has recently gained increased importance in several Western countries. However, there is little knowledge about how the patients themselves and their next-of-kin look upon involvement in end-of-life care decisions. The purpose of this paper is to explore nursing home patients' and next-of-kin's experiences with- and perspectives on end-of-life care conversations, information and shared decision-making.

methodsThe study has a qualitative and explorative design, based on a combination of individual interviews with 35 patients living in six nursing homes and seven focus group interviews with 33 relatives. The data was analysed applying a "bricolage" approach". Participation was based on informed consent, and the study was approved by the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics.

resultsFew patients and relatives had participated in conversations about end-of-life care. Most relatives wanted such conversations, while the patients' opinions varied. With some exceptions, patients and relatives wanted to be informed about the patient's health condition. The majority wanted to be involved in the decision-making process, but leave the final decisions to the health professionals. Among the patients, the opinion varied; some patients wanted to leave the decisions more or less completely to the nursing home staff. Conversations about end-of-life care issues are emotionally challenging, and very few patients had discussed these questions with their family. The relatives' opinions of the patient's preferences were mainly based on assumptions; they had seldom talked about this explicitly. Both patients and relatives wanted the staff to raise these questions.

conclusionNursing home staff should initiate conversations about preferences for end-of-life care, assisting patients and relatives in talking about these issues, while at the same time being sensitive to the diversity in opinions and the timing for such conversations. As the popularity of advance care planning increases in many Western countries, discussions of patients' and relatives' perspectives will be of great interest to a broader audience.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingInterpersonal RelationsTerminal CareAdultAdvance Care PlanningAgedDecision MakingFamilyFemaleFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelHomes for the AgedHumansMaleNursing HomesPatient Preference

Identifiers

PMID26286070
PMCPMC4544816

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.