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.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethical dilemmas in the care of patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias unable to give informed consent: positioning Lebanon within the Global North-South context.BMC medical ethics · 2025Pooled it
- Attitudes of older adults toward active euthanasia in advanced Alzheimer's disease.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2026Article
- Exploring the public attitudes toward euthanasia legalization in China, especially among individuals with mental disorders: a national cross-sectional study.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- Preferences for life-sustaining treatments in advance decisions: a cross-sectional survey of Taiwanese general public.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Community Preferences for the Care of Older People at the End of Life: How Important is the Disease Context?The patient · 2024Article
- Citizen attitudes to non-treatment decision making: a Norwegian survey.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Association between subjective economic status and refusal of life-prolonging treatment: a cross-sectional study using content analysis with stratified random sampling.Fukushima journal of medical science · 2022Article
- Impact of the comprehensive geriatric assessment on treatment decision in geriatric oncology.BMC cancer · 2020Article
- Development and psychometric evaluation of a new tool for measuring the attitudes of patients with progressive neurological diseases to ethical aspects of end-of-life care.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- End-of-life care preferences of the general public and recommendations of healthcare providers: a nationwide survey in Japan.BMC palliative care · 2020Article
- Article
- After providing end of life care to relatives, what care options do family caregivers prefer for themselves?PloS one · 2020Article
- The spectrum of end of life care: an argument for access to medical assistance in dying for vulnerable populations.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2019Review
- Educating the Existential View to Nurses in Cancer Care: A Review.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.