Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33311838›Full record

ArticleAnnual review of sociology2019

Well-Being at the End of Life.

Deborah Carr, Elizabeth A Luth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annual review of sociology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Black and White older adults' end-of-life experiences: does hospice use mitigate racial disparities?The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. The new sociology of bereavement.Annual review of sociology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. When Patients Make Unexpected Medical Choices.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

2 authors.

Deborah CarrDepartment of Sociology, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.
Elizabeth A LuthWeill Cornell Medicine,NewYork,NewYork 10065, USA.

Funding

The Weill Cornell Medicine Research Training Program in Behavioral GeriatricsT32AG049666 · NIA · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI SARA J CZAJA, Manney Carrington Reid · 2016 to 2026
$3.2M
NIA NIH HHS T32 AG049666
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review proposes that the end of life is a uniquely contemporary life course stage. Epidemiologic, technological, and cultural shifts over the past two centuries have created a context in which dying has shifted from a sudden and unexpected event to a protracted, anticipated transition following an incurable chronic illness. The emergence of an end-of-life stage lasting for months or even years has heightened public interest in enhancing patient well-being, autonomy, and the receipt of medical care that accords with patient and family members' wishes. We describe key components of end-of-life well-being and highlight socioeconomic and race disparities therein, drawing on fundamental cause theory. We describe two practices that are critical to end-of-life well-being (advance care planning and hospice) and identify limitations that may undermine their effectiveness. We conclude with recommendations for future sociological research that could inform practices to enhance patient and family well-being at the end of life.

Indexed as

advance care planningdeath and dyinghospiceinequalitylife coursewell-being

Identifiers

PMID33311838
PMCPMC7731514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.