Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35309870›Full record

ArticlePalliative care and social practice2022

Talking about the end of life: communication patterns in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - a scoping review.

Anke Erdmann, Celia Spoden, Irene Hirschberg, Gerald Neitzke

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Palliative care and social practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Anke ErdmannInstitute for Experimental Medicine, Medical Ethics Working Group, Kiel University, 24105 Kiel, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3708-8889
Celia SpodenGerman Institute for Japanese Studies, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5103-6212
Irene HirschbergInstitute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Gerald NeitzkeInstitute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) leads to death on average 2-4 years after the onset of symptoms. Although many people with the disease decide in favour of life-sustaining measures, some consider hastening death. The objectives of this review are to provide an insight into the following questions: (1) How do people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (PALS), their families and health care professionals (HCPs) communicate about life-sustaining and life-shortening options? (2) What are the challenges for all involved in decision making and communication about this topic? To answer these questions, we searched eight databases for publications in English and German on end-of-life issues of PALS. We included texts published between 2008 and 2018, and updated our search to May 2020. Sources were analysed in MAXQDA using deductively and inductively generated codes. After the final analysis, 123 full texts were included in this review. We identified a wide range of communicative challenges and six different and, in part, opposite communication patterns: avoiding or delaying communication on end-of-life issues, openly considering dying and actively seeking assistance, ignoring or disregarding patients' wishes, discussing and respecting the patients' wishes, engaging in advance care planning and avoiding or delaying advance care planning. The literature reveals a very heterogeneous response to end-of-life issues in ALS, despite several good-practice suggestions, examples and guidelines. We derive a strong need for harmonization and quality assurance concerning communication with PALS. Avoiding or delaying communication, decision making and planning, as well as ignoring or disregarding the patient's will by HCP can be judged as a violation of the ethical principles of autonomy and non-maleficence.

Indexed as

advance care planningassisted suicidecommunication strategiesend-of-life decision makingeuthanasiawish to hasten death

Identifiers

PMID35309870
PMCPMC8928370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.