Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28379955›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Preferences for care towards the end of life when decision-making capacity may be impaired: A large scale cross-sectional survey of public attitudes in Great Britain and the United States.

Gemma Clarke, Elizabeth Fistein, Anthony Holland, Matthew Barclay, Pia Theimann, Stephen Barclay

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Educating the Existential View to Nurses in Cancer Care: A Review.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research
    Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gemma ClarkeCambridge Institute of Public Health, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth FisteinCambridge Institute of Public Health, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Anthony HollandCambridge Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Group, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Douglas House, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Matthew BarclayCambridge Institute of Public Health, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Pia TheimannCambridge Institute of Public Health, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Stephen BarclayCambridge Institute of Public Health, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

The Dunhill Medical Trust R317/1113
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is continuing public debate about treatment preferences at the end of life, and the acceptability and legal status of treatments that sustain or end life. However, most surveys use binary yes/no measures, and little is known about preferences in neurological disease when decision-making capacity is lost, as most studies focus on cancer. This study investigates changes in public preferences for care towards the end of life, with a focus on measures to sustain or end life.

methodsLarge-scale international public opinion surveys using a six-stage patient vignette, respondents chose a level of intervention for each stage as health and decision-making capacity deteriorated. Cross-sectional representative samples of the general public in Great Britain and the USA (N = 2016). Primary outcome measure: changes in respondents' preferences for care, measured on a four-point scale designed before data collection. The scale ranged from: maintaining life at all costs; to intervention with agreement; to no intervention; to measures for ending life.

resultsThere were no significant differences between GB and USA. Preference for measures to sustain life at all costs peaked at short-term memory loss (30.2%, n = 610). Respondents selecting 'measures to help me die peacefully' increased from 3.9% to 37.0% as the condition deteriorated, with the largest increase occurring when decision-making capacity was lost (10.3% to 23.0%). Predictors of choosing 'measures to help me die peacefully' at any stage were: previous personal experience (OR = 1.34, p<0.010), and older age (OR = 1.09 per decade, p<0.010). Negative predictors: living with children (OR = 0.72, p<0.010) and being of "black" race/ethnicity (OR = 0.45, p<0.001).

conclusionsPublic opinion was uniform between GB and USA, but markedly heterogeneous. Despite contemporaneous capacitous consent providing an essential legal safeguard in most jurisdictions, there was a high prevalence of preference for "measures to end my life peacefully" when decision-making capacity was compromised, which increased as dementia progressed. In contrast, a significant number chose preservation of life at all costs, even in end stage dementia. It is challenging to respect the longstanding values of people with dementia concerning either the inviolability of life or personal autonomy, whilst protecting those without decision-making capacity.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAdvance DirectivesAgedAttitudeCross-Sectional StudiesDecision MakingDementiaFemaleHumansMaleMemory, Short-TermMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionPersonal AutonomyPublic Opinion

Identifiers

PMID28379955
PMCPMC5381758
OpenAlexW2605261628

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.