Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37305466›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Stakeholders' perspectives of a good death: A qualitative study from Thailand.

Pawapol Keratichewanun, Nisachol Dejkriengkraikul, Chaisiri Angkurawaranon, Kanokporn Pinyopornpanish, Lalita Chutarattanakul, Nopakoon Nantsupawat, Nutchar Wiwatkunupakarn, Wichuda Jiraporncharoen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Pawapol KeratichewanunDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand, 110 Intawaroros Rd, Sriphum, Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Nisachol DejkriengkraikulDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand, 110 Intawaroros Rd, Sriphum, Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Chaisiri AngkurawaranonDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand, 110 Intawaroros Rd, Sriphum, Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Kanokporn PinyopornpanishDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand, 110 Intawaroros Rd, Sriphum, Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Lalita ChutarattanakulDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand, 110 Intawaroros Rd, Sriphum, Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Nopakoon NantsupawatDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand, 110 Intawaroros Rd, Sriphum, Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Nutchar WiwatkunupakarnDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand, 110 Intawaroros Rd, Sriphum, Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Wichuda JiraporncharoenDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand, 110 Intawaroros Rd, Sriphum, Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: A 'good death' is one of palliative care's main goals. However, there are different perspectives on what a good death is. Perspectives from three groups of people involved in the dying process: patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers; are crucial because how they interact will affect the overall quality of end-of-life care. Objective: The aims were to 1) explore what is a good death and 2) how to achieve it from the perspectives of those involved in patient care. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted between February to August 2019. The recruitment triad of stakeholders consisted of one patient with their primary caregiver and their physician. Interviews were conducted by researchers who had no prior relationship with the participants and were not a part of the healthcare team. Each research aim was analyzed separately using thematic content analysis. Data saturation was reached when no new or emerging themes emerged. Fourteen people were interviewed; five patients, five caregivers, and four physicians. Results: Regarding perspectives of a good death, four themes emerged: 1: Peaceful natural progression and symptom-free, 2: Acceptance of death and dignity, 3: Readiness for death is facilitated by social support and the environment, and 4: Faith and religious values can bring peace. For the second research question regarding how to help the patient achieve a good death, three themes emerged: 1: provide supportive care, 2: good communication, and 3: prioritize the patients' wishes. Conclusion: In the Thai context, the meaning of a good death relates to symptom control, acceptance of death, social support, and faith. However, a clear understanding of each individual's meaning of good death is required due to individualized needs and perceptions. Physicians and stakeholders looking to support good death should focus on providing supportive care, good communication, and prioritizing the patient's will and wishes.

Indexed as

DeathHealth personnelPalliative careQualitative researchTerminal care

Identifiers

PMID37305466
PMCPMC10256851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.