Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36890542›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2023

Citizen attitudes to non-treatment decision making: a Norwegian survey.

David Wikstøl, Morten Andreas Horn, Reidar Pedersen, Morten Magelssen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

David WikstølCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Pb. 1130, 0318, Blindern, Oslo, Norway.
Morten Andreas HornDepartment of Neurology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Reidar PedersenCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Pb. 1130, 0318, Blindern, Oslo, Norway.
Morten MagelssenCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Pb. 1130, 0318, Blindern, Oslo, Norway. Morten.magelssen@medisin.uio.no.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecisions about appropriate treatment at the end of life are common in modern healthcare. Non-treatment decisions (NTDs), comprising both withdrawal and withholding of (potentially) life-prolonging treatment are in principle accepted in Norway. However, in practice they may give rise to significant moral problems for health professionals, patients and next of kin. Here, patient values must be considered. It is relevant to study the moral views and intuitions of the general population on NTDs and special areas of contention such as the role of next of kin in decision-making.

methodsElectronic survey to members of a nationally representative panel of Norwegian adults. Respondents were presented with vignettes describing patients with disorders of consciousness, dementia, and cancer where patient preferences varied. Respondents answered ten questions about the acceptability of non-treatment decision making and the role of next of kin.

resultsWe received 1035 complete responses (response rate 40.7%). A large majority, 88%, supported the right of competent patients to refuse treatment in general. When an NTD was in line with the patient's previously expressed preferences, more respondents tended to find NTDs acceptable. More respondents would accept NTDs for themselves than for the vignette patients. In a scenario with an incompetent patient, clear majorities wanted the views of next of kin to be given some but not decisive weight, and more weight if concordant with the patient's wishes. There were, however, large variations in the respondents' views.

conclusionThis survey of a representative sample of the Norwegian adult population indicates that attitudes to NTDs are often in line with national laws and guidelines. However, the high variance among the respondents and relatively large weight given to next of kin's views, indicate a need for appropriate dialogue among all stakeholders to prevent conflicts and extra burdens. Furthermore, the emphasis given to previously expressed opinions indicates that advance care planning may increase the legitimacy of NTDs and prevent challenging decision-making processes.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningDecision MakingAdultAttitudeHealth PersonnelHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesAdvance care planningAttitude surveyClinical ethicsEnd-of-life decision makingMinimally conscious stateNon-treatment decisionsUnresponsive wakefulness syndromeWithdrawal of life-prolonging treatment

Identifiers

PMID36890542
PMCPMC9993678

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.