Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36876014›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2023

End-of-life decisions: A focus group study with German health professionals from human and veterinary medicine.

Felicitas Selter, Kirsten Persson, Peter Kunzmann, Gerald Neitzke

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Felicitas SelterInstitute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Kirsten PerssonApplied Ethics in Veterinary Medicine Group, Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behavior, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Peter KunzmannApplied Ethics in Veterinary Medicine Group, Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behavior, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Gerald NeitzkeInstitute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Research Institute for Philosophy Hannover · DEUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: At first glance, human and (companion animal) veterinary medicine share challenging processes in end-of-life (EOL) decision-making. At the same time, treatment options in both professions are substantially different. The potential of an interdisciplinary exchange between both fields has been neglected by empirical research so far. Methods: In this qualitative study, professionals from both fields were brought together in interdisciplinary focus groups to investigate the ethical aspects of convergences and divergences in EOL situations in human and veterinary medicine. The authors present and discuss an innovative mix of materials and methods as stimuli for discussion and for generating hypotheses. Results: The results point toward a general convergence of issues, challenges, and judgements in EOL situations in both fields, such as professional ethos, communication with the family and the role thereof as well as the ideals of death, clearly exceeding the expectations of study participants. At the same time, the study highlights a few prominent differences such as the access to patients' preferences or legal and practical constraints. Discussion: The findings suggest that using social science methods in empirical interdisciplinary biomedical-veterinary ethics could help to shed more light on this new area. Animal as well as human patients can potentially benefit from this mutual, scientifically accompanied exchange and the resulting identification and corrections of misconceptions.

Indexed as

death and dyingeuthanasiaheterogeneous focus groupsinterdisciplinary focus groupsmedical ethicsphysician-assisted deathqualitative researchveterinary ethics

Identifiers

PMID36876014
PMCPMC9975587
OpenAlexW4320918872

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.