ArticleBMC palliative care2022
"Discussion or silent accompaniment: a grounded theory study about voluntary stopping of eating and drinking in Switzerland".
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 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The experience of nurses when providing care across acts that may be perceived as death hastening: A qualitative evidence synthesis.Palliative medicine · 2025Pooled it
- First-Hand Recommendations for Nursing Management to Support Nurses Involved in the Process of Hastened Death: A Systematic Review of the Qualitative Evidence.Journal of nursing management · 2023Pooled it
- Carers' Perspective on Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking: A Systematic Mixed-Methods Review of Motives and Attitudes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Ethical challenges around thirst in end-of-life care -experiences of palliative care physicians.BMC medical ethics · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVoluntary stopping of eating and drinking as an option to end life prematurely is gaining international attention, and health care professionals are increasingly confronted with the wish to die through voluntary stopping of eating and drinking by individuals. While to date, there are no guidelines in Switzerland to orient professional support, it is of interest how professionals and other people involved react to the situation. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how health care professionals in Switzerland accompany individuals during voluntary stopping of eating and drinking and to analyze this decision-making process.
methodsCharmaz's grounded theory constructivist methodology uses guidelines for systematic, theory-driven data analysis underpinned by a pragmatic philosophical perspective. Data were collected in autumn 2016 as part of a regional palliative care conference on voluntary stopping of eating and drinking. All participants of the expert meeting (N = 50, including nurses, counsellors, ethicists, medical doctors, politicians, volunteers, and relatives) were invited to the focus group interviews, of which N = 47 participated. We conducted five focus group interviews, each lasting one hour.
resultsThe results showed that the accompaniment of those willing to die during voluntary stopping of eating and drinking was either discussed and cleared with one another or was unspoken and silently accompanied.
conclusionsThe demands of participants for more knowledge must be heeded, and there is also a need for systematic instructions on how to proceed in the case of voluntary stopping of eating and drinking support and what needs to be considered.
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.