Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35787278›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2022

A systematic scoping review on patients' perceptions of dignity.

Keith Zi Yuan Chua, Elaine Li Ying Quah, Yun Xue Lim, Chloe Keyi Goh, Jieyu Lim, Darius Wei Jun Wan, Simone Meiqi Ong, Chi Sum Chong, Kennan Zhi Guang Yeo, Laura Shih Hui Goh and 9 more

Abstract readScoping Review
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 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Nurses' Actions of Maintaining Patient Dignity: An Integrative Review.Scandinavian journal of caring sciences · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

19 authors.

Keith Zi Yuan ChuaYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Elaine Li Ying QuahYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Yun Xue LimYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Chloe Keyi GohYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Jieyu LimYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Darius Wei Jun WanYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Simone Meiqi OngYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Chi Sum ChongYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Kennan Zhi Guang YeoYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Laura Shih Hui GohYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Ray Meng SeeYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Alexia Sze Inn LeeDivision of Cancer Education, 11 Hospital Crescent, National Cancer Centre, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Yun Ting OngYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Min ChiamDivision of Cancer Education, 11 Hospital Crescent, National Cancer Centre, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Eng Koon OngDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, 11 Hospital Crescent, National Cancer Centre, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Jamie Xuelian ZhouDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, 11 Hospital Crescent, National Cancer Centre, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Crystal LimMedical Social Services, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Rd, Singapore, 169608, Singapore.
Simon Yew Kuang OngDivision of Cancer Education, 11 Hospital Crescent, National Cancer Centre, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Lalit KrishnaYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore. lalit.radha-krishna@liverpool.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA socioculturally appropriate appreciation of dignity is pivotal to the effective provision of care for dying patients. Yet concepts of dignity remain poorly defined. To address this gap in understanding and enhance dignity conserving end-of-life care, a review of current concepts of dignity is proposed.

methodsTo address its primary research question "How do patients conceive the concept of dignity at the end of life?", this review appraises regnant concepts and influences of dignity, and evaluates current dignity conserving practices. To enhance accountability, transparency and reproducibility, this review employs the Ring Theory of Personhood (RToP) as its theoretical lens to guide a Systematic Evidence Based Approach guided Systematic Scoping Review (SSR in SEBA) of patient perspectives of dignity. Three independent teams of reviewers independently analysed included articles from a structured search of PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane Databases using thematic and content analyses. The themes and categories identified were compared and combined using the Funnelling Process to create domains that guide the discussion that follows.

resultsSeventy-eight thousand five hundred seventy-five abstracts were identified, 645 articles were reviewed, and 127 articles were included. The three domains identified were definitions of dignity, influences upon perceptions of dignity, and dignity conserving care.

conclusionsThis SSR in SEBA affirms the notion that dignity is intimately entwined with self-concepts of personhood and that effective dignity conserving measures at the end of life must be guided by the patient's concept of dignity. This SSR in SEBA posits that such personalised culturally sensitive, and timely support of patients, their family and loved ones may be possible through the early and longitudinal application of a RToP based tool.

Indexed as

RespectTerminal CareDeathHumansPersonhoodReproducibility of ResultsDignityMedicinePatientsReview

Identifiers

PMID35787278
PMCPMC9251939

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.