ArticleBMC medical ethics2022
Decision-making ethics in regards to life-sustaining interventions: when physicians refer to what other patients decide.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Voluntariness of requests for assisted suicide].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Review
- Shared decision-making and deprescribing to support anti-thrombotic therapy (dis)continuance for persons living with cancer in their last phase of life: A realist synthesis.PLoS medicine · 2025Article
- "If I Become a Vegetable, Then no": A Thematic Analysis of How Patients and Physicians Refer to Prognosis When Discussing Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.Gerontology & geriatric medicineArticle
- Voices of the Future: Junior Physicians' Experiences of Discussing Life-Sustaining Treatments With Hospitalized Patients.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth decisions occur in a context with omnipresent social influences. Information concerning what other patients decide may present certain interventions as more desirable than others.
objectivesTo explore how physicians refer to what other people decide in conversations about the relevancy of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders (DNAR).
methodsWe recorded forty-three physician-patient admission interviews taking place in a hospital in French-speaking Switzerland, during which CPR is discussed. Data was analysed with conversation analysis.
resultsReference to what other people decide in regards to CPR is used five times, through reported speech. The reference is generic, and employed as a resource to deal with trouble encountered with the patient's preference, either because it is absent or potentially incompatible with the medical recommendation. In our data, it is a way for physicians to present decisional paths and to steer towards the relevancy of DNAR orders ("Patients tell us 'no futile care'"). By calling out to a sense of membership, it builds towards the patient embracing norms that are associated with a desirable or relevant social group.
conclusionsIntroducing DNAR decisions in terms of what other people opt for is a way for physicians to bring up the eventuality of allowing natural death in a less overt way. Formulating treatment choices in terms of what other people do has implications in terms of supporting autonomous and informed decision making, since it nudges patients towards conformity with what is presented as the most preferable choice on the basis of social norms.
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.