Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35578262›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2022

Meeting ethical challenges with authenticity when engaging patients and families in end-of-life and palliative care research: a qualitative study.

Matthew DeCamp, Ahmed Alasmar, Stacy Fischer, Jean S Kutner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Palliative Care: A Primary Care Pharmacist Perspective.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    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.

Matthew DeCampCenter for Bioethics and Humanities and Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, 13080 E. 19th Ave, Mail Stop B137, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. matthew.decamp@cuanschutz.edu.
Ahmed AlasmarCenter for Bioethics and Humanities, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, USA.
Stacy FischerDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, USA.
Jean S KutnerDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, USA.

Funding

Palliative Care Research Cooperative Group (PCRC): Refinement and ExpansionU2CNR014637 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI KUTNER, JEAN S, POLLAK, KATHRYN I · 2018 to 2022
$8.6M
NINR NIH HHS U2C NR014637NINR NIH HHS U2CNR014637-07S2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDelivering high quality, patient- and family-centered care depends upon high quality end-of-life and palliative care (EOLPC) research. Engaging patients and families as advisors, partners, or co-investigators throughout the research lifecycle is widely regarded as critical to ensuring high quality research. Engagement is not only an ethical obligation, it also raises ethical challenges of its own. We conducted a qualitative study to understand ethical challenges and potential solutions when engaging patients and families in EOLPC research.

methodsWe recruited and interviewed 20 clinical investigators and 22 patients or family caregivers through the Palliative Care Research Cooperative Group (PCRC). Interview transcripts were analyzed using constructivist grounded theory methodology. Analysis sought to identify ethical challenges and potential solutions, as well as to synthesize findings into practical recommendations tailored to engaging patients and families in EOLPC research.

resultsOur study identified 8 ethical challenges considered unique to the EOLPC research context and 11 potential solutions to these challenges. The most frequently described ethical challenges included the need to minimize burdens of engagement for patients and caregivers, challenges of dealing with death and illness, and paternalism or "gatekeeping" (i.e., withholding the opportunity to participate from patients or caregivers). Investigators and patients or family caregivers conceptualized ethics challenges differently; several issues appeared to fall outside a traditional research ethics paradigm and more into the ethics of relationships. We synthesized these findings into 4 practical recommendations hypothesized to support authentic engagement.

conclusionsEngaging patients and families in EOLPC research can raise unique ethical challenges. These challenges can be overcome to empower participation, minimize the unique burdens of EOLPC, and promote diversity. Whereas traditional research ethics tend to emphasize protecting research participants who may be vulnerable, an ethics approach based on authentic engagement that explores what it means for investigators and patients or family caregivers to be in a relationship may be needed. Future research is needed to explore this approach and test these recommendations in practice.

Indexed as

Hospice CareTerminal CareDeathHumansPalliative CareQualitative ResearchEnd-of-life careEthicsPalliative care researchPatient and family engagementProfessionalism

Identifiers

PMID35578262
PMCPMC9108140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.