ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2022
Decision-making conversations for life-sustaining treatment with seriously ill patients using a Danish version of the US POLST: a qualitative study of patient and physician experiences.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2022. 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.
- Facilitators of and barriers to high-quality care at end-of-life: experiences of terminally ill patients and their relatives.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Shared decision-making with older people on TReatment Escalation planning for Acute deterioration in the emergency Medical Setting - Observed (STREAMS-O): an ethnographic study.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Life-Sustaining Treatment Communication: A Comparison Between Physicians and Surrogates.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A Scoping Review on Goals of Care Discussions in Surgery: How Are We Doing and How Can We Do Better?World journal of surgery · 2025Article
- From Burden to Empowerment. Patient-Reported Influencing Factors on Participation in Shared Decision Making in Oncology, a Meta-Study.Psycho-oncology · 2025Review
- Consensus statements on end-of-life care in ICU - A Scandinavian multidisciplinary Delphi study.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Article
- Perspectives of healthcare professionals and older patients on shared decision-making for treatment escalation planning in the acute hospital setting: a systematic review and qualitative thematic synthesis.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- Facilitators and Barriers for Initiating Conversations About End of Life.Palliative medicine reports · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore patients' and physicians' perspectives on a decision-making conversation for life-sustaining treatment, based on the Danish model of the American Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form.
designSemi-structured interviews following a conversation about preferences for life-sustaining treatment.
settingDanish hospitals, nursing homes, and general practitioners' clinics. SUBJECTS: Patients and physicians.
main outcome measuresQualitative analyses of interview data.
findingsAfter participating in a conversation about life-sustaining treatment using the Danish POLST form, a total of six patients and five physicians representing different settings and age groups participated in an interview about their experience of the process. Within the main research questions, six subthemes were identified: Timing, relatives are key persons, clarifying treatment preferences, documentation across settings, strengthening patient autonomy, and structure influences conversations. Most patients and physicians found having a conversation about levels of life-sustaining treatment valuable but also complicated due to the different levels of knowledge and attending to individual patient needs and medical necessities. Relatives were considered as key persons to ensure the understanding of the treatment trajectory and the ability to advocate for the patient in case of a medical crisis. The majority of participants found that the conversation strengthened patient autonomy.
conclusionPatients and physicians found having a conversation about levels of life-sustaining treatment valuable, especially for strengthening patient autonomy. Relatives were considered key persons. The timing of the conversation and securing sufficient knowledge for shared decision-making were the main perceived challenges.KEY POINTSConversations about preferences for life-sustaining treatment are important, but not performed systematically.When planning a conversation about preferences for life-sustaining treatment, the timing of the conversation and the inclusion of relatives are key elements.Decision-making conversations can help patients feel in charge and less alone, and make it easier for health professionals to provide goal-concordant care.Using a model like the Danish POLST form may help to initiate, conduct and structure conversations about preferences for life-sustaining treatment.
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.