Trial reportAJOB empirical bioethics
How acceptable is paternalism? A survey-based study of clinician and nonclinician opinions on paternalistic decision making.
Trial report in AJOB empirical bioethics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aligning Care to Cognitive Style: A 4-Question Framework for Patient-Centered Dermatology Visits.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2026Article
- Patient decision-making in the era of transcarotid artery revascularization.Journal of vascular surgery · 2024Article
- When end of treatment situations challenge patient-centered care: a discussion paper proposing new theoretical insights.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Race and Ethnicity Influences Outcomes of Adult Burn Patients.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2023Article
- "Reading the room:" A qualitative analysis of pediatric surgeons' approach to clinical counseling.Journal of pediatric surgery · 2023Article
- Communication of the Diagnosis of Spinal Muscular Atrophy in the Views of Patients and Family Members, a Qualitative Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- End-of-Life Care Decision-Making in Stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Review
- Reinforcing medical authority: clinical ethics consultation and the resolution of conflicts in treatment decisions.Sociology of health & illness · 2020Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We conducted an empirical study to explore clinician and lay opinions on the acceptability of physician paternalism. Respondents read a vignette describing a patient with brain hemorrhage facing urgent surgery that would be lifesaving but would result in long-term severe disability. Cases were randomized to show either low or high surrogate distress and certain or uncertain prognosis, with respondents rating the acceptability of not offering brain surgery. Clinicians (N = 169) were more likely than nonclinicians (N = 649) to find the doctor withholding surgery acceptable (30.2% vs. 11.4%, p ≤ 0.001). Among clinicians, the doctor withholding surgery was more acceptable when prognosis was certain to be poor (odds ratio [OR] 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04, 4.01). There was no effect of surrogate distress on clinician ratings. Responses among lay public were more variable. Given the differences in attitudes across clinicians and lay public, there is an ongoing need to engage stakeholders in the process of end-of-life decision making.
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.