ArticleQualitative health research2020
Between Choice, Necessity, and Comfort: Deciding on Tube Feeding in the Acute Phase After a Severe Stroke.
Article in Qualitative health research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Shared Decision-Making for Patients with Stroke in Neurocritical Care: A Qualitative Meta-Synthesis.Neurocritical care · 2025Pooled it
- Factors influencing withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in patients with severe acquired brain injuries: a scoping review.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This is an ethnographic study of decision-making concerning tube feeding in the acute phase after a severe stroke. It is based on 6 months of ethnographic research in three stroke units in the Netherlands, where the decision-making on life-sustaining treatment was studied in 16 cases of severe stroke patients. Data were collected through participant observation and interviews. For this article, the analysis was narrowed down to the decision whether or not the patient should receive tube feeding. The data on tube feeding were assembled and coded according to different modes of dealing with this decision in clinical practice, which we refer to as "repertoires." We discerned three different repertoires: choice, necessity, and comfort. Each repertoire structures clinical practice differently: It implies distinctive ethical imperatives, central concerns, sources of information, and temporalities. We hope our findings can improve decision-making by uncovering its underlying logics in clinical practice.
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.