ArticleHealth science reports2023
Conceptualizations of "good death" and their relationship to technology: A scoping review and discourse analysis.
Article in Health science reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differences in perceptions of quality of dying scores during the last days of life on Belgian acute geriatric wards: a prospective observational study in relatives, nurses, and doctors.European geriatric medicine · 2026Article
- Islamic Conceptions of Human Dignity and Their Relevance for Bioethics of End-of-Life Healthcare.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Assessing prioritization of a good death across Brazil, Italy, Japan, and the United States: A psychometric evaluation.Death studies · 2026Article
- Compassionate engagement of communities in support of palliative and end-of-life care: challenges in post-pandemic era.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Conceptualizations of "good death" and their relationship to technology: A scoping review and discourse analysis.Health science reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: By the 1960s, medicine experienced technological revolutions that enabled it to control and medicalize death in many circumstances. The modern conceptualization of "good death" emerged in the late 1960s with the beginning of the hospice movement, and palliative care became an official medical specialty in 1987. This project aims to elucidate how the idea of "good death" has been discussed and perceived since then, as well as the impact of medical technologies on death. Methods: The terms "good death," "technology," and "palliative care" were searched. One hundred ninety English sources that discussed "good death" explicitly or implicitly, published between 1987 and 2020, were included in the final analysis. Texts were analyzed for discursive themes related to "good death" and technology and demographic data related to authors, geographies, types of text, and date of publication. Results: The discourse of a "good death" with the patient being in control dominated the archive. Other discourses include a good death being peaceful and comfortable, one where the patient is not alone, and one that is not prolonged. Medical technology discourses are largely negative in the setting of death. Conclusion: Findings indicate a strong critique of the medicalization of death in the literature. This also complements the dominance of discourses on patient autonomy. Medical discourses of "good death" and technology permeate discussion outside of the healthcare context, and there is an absence of spirituality and neutrality in "good death" discourses. The results of this study are relevant for ethics and communication in geriatric and palliative care.
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.