ArticlePatient preference and adherence2016
Intricate decision making: ambivalences and barriers when fulfilling an advance directive.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- [Opportunities and risks of advance directives : An appraisal of the practice in Germany after legal regulation in 2009].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Review
- Psychometric Testing of the Korean Version of the Attitudes toward the Advance Directives in Low-Income Chronically Ill Older Adults.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Survey on German Palliative Care Specialists' Experiences with Advance Directives.Pain and therapy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite a recent statutory ruling stating the binding nature of advance directives (ADs), only a minority of the population has signed one. Yet, a majority deem it of utmost importance to ensure their wishes are followed through in case they are no longer able to decide. The reasons for this discrepancy have not yet been investigated sufficiently. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis article is based on a survey of patients using a well-established structured questionnaire. First, patients were asked about their attitudes with respect to six therapeutic options at the end of life: intravenous fluids, artificial feeding, antibiotics, analgesia, chemotherapy/dialysis, and artificial ventilation; and second, they were asked about the negative effects related to the idea of ADs surveying their apprehensions: coercion to fulfill an AD, dictatorial reading of what had been laid down, and abuse of ADs.
resultsA total of 1,260 interviewees completed the questionnaires. A significant percentage of interviewees were indecisive with respect to therapeutic options, ranging from 25% (analgesia) to 45% (artificial feeding). There was no connection to health status. Apprehensions about unwanted effects of ADs were widespread, at 51%, 35%, and 43% for coercion, dictatorial reading, and abuse, respectively.
conclusionA significant percentage of interviewees were unable to anticipate decisions about treatment options at the end of life. Apprehensions about negative adverse effects of ADs are widespread.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.