ArticleBMJ open2021
Preferences for life-sustaining treatment in Korean adults: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of withholding and withdrawal life-sustaining treatment issues on patients with sepsis: a prospective, nationwide, multicenter cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Reconsidering dependence on life-sustaining treatment as a criterion for assisted suicide: the Italian legal unicum in comparative perspective.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Analysis of middle-aged and older adults' willingness concerning living wills and associated factors.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLife-sustaining treatment is any treatment that serves to prolong life without reversing the underlying medical conditions, and includes cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, haemodialysis and left ventricular assist devices. This study aimed to investigate the thoughts on life-sustaining treatment of Koreans and to assess the factors associated with deciding to not receive life-sustaining treatment if they develop a terminal disease.
designCross-sectional study.
settingGuro-gu centre for dementia from 1 May 2018 to 31 December 2019.
participantsIn total, 150 individuals participated in this study. OUTCOME MEASURES: The questionnaire consisted of self-report items with some instructions, demographic characteristics, thoughts on life-sustaining treatment and psychosocial scales. The preferences of the participants were investigated on the assumption that they develop terminal cancer. The psychosocial scales included the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS).
resultsWe classified our participants into two groups: individuals who wanted to receive life-sustaining treatment (IRLT) and individuals who wanted to not receive life-sustaining treatment (INLT). There were twice as many participants in the INLT group than there were in the IRLT. In making this decision, the INLT group focused more on physical and mental distress. Additionally, 32.7% of participants responded that terminal status was an optimal time for this decision, but more participants want to decide it earlier. The GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores were significantly higher in the INLT group than in the IRLT group. However, the INLT group had significantly lower MSPSS family scores.
conclusionOur findings can help assess issues regarding advance directives and life-sustaining treatment, and will be a reference for designing future studies on this issue.
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.