Observational studyBMC medical ethics2021
Do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders: attitudes, perceptions and practices of Swedish physicians and nurses.
Observational study in BMC medical ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting 30-day survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest: a nationwide cohort study using machine learning and SHAP analysis.BMJ open · 2025Observational
- Assessing the approaches to nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: insights from a nationwide survey of Italian gynecologists (PURITY light).Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of ePOS score in predicting DNR labeling after ICU admission: A prospective observational study (ePOS-DNR).Journal of intensive medicine · 2024Article
- Incidence and percentage of survival after cardiac arrest outside and inside hospital: A comparison between two regions in Sweden.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- Barriers and facilitators for cardiopulmonary resuscitation discussions with people with heart failure.PloS one · 2024Article
- Knowledge and attitudes of physicians in Chile toward Do-Not-Attempt-Resuscitation orders: A cross-sectional nation-wide study.SAGE open medicine · 2024Article
- To withhold resuscitation - The Swedish system's rules and challenges.Resuscitation plus · 2023Article
- Perceived Difficulties and Learning Needs Among Acute Care Ward Nurses Providing End-of-Life Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparison by Years of Clinical Experience.Yonago acta medica · 2023Article
- Perceptions and experiences of community-based healthcare professionals in the state of Qatar having do not attempt resuscitation discussions during the COVID-19 pandemic.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe values and attitudes of healthcare professionals influence their handling of 'do-not-attempt-resuscitation' (DNAR) orders. The aim of this study was a) to describe attitudes, perceptions and practices among Swedish physicians and nurses towards discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation and DNAR orders with patients and their relatives, and b) to investigate if the physicians and nurses were familiar with the national ethical guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
methodsThis was a retrospective observational study based on a questionnaire and was conducted at 19 wards in two regional hospitals and one county hospital.
results210 physicians and 312 nurses (n = 522) responded to the questionnaire. Every third (35%) professional had read the guidelines with a lower proportion of physicians (29%) compared to nurses (38%). Around 40% of patients had the opportunity or ability to participate in the DNAR discussion. The DNAR decision was discussed with 38% of patients and the prognosis with 46%. Of the patients who were considered to have the ability to participate in the discussion, 79% did so. The majority (81%) of physicians and nurses believed that patients should always be asked about their preferences before a DNAR decision was made.
conclusionsSwedish healthcare professionals take a patient's autonomy into account regarding DNAR decisions. Nevertheless, as 50% of patients were considered unable to participate in the DNAR discussion, questions remain about the timing of patient participation and whether more discussions could have been conducted earlier. Given the uncertainty about timing, the majority of patients deemed competent participated in DNAR discussions.
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.