ArticleBMJ supportive & palliative care2024
Personal legacy and treatment choices for serious illness: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ supportive & palliative care, 2024. 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.
- Serious Illness and Health Care Threats to Personal Legacy Goals.The Permanente journal · 2026Article
- Legacy Building from the Perspective of Palliative Care Professionals in Portugal: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Neurology and physician-assisted suicide: glossary of definitions and terminology.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025Article
- Legacy in End-of-Life Care: A Concept Analysis.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLegacy-how one hopes to be remembered after death-is an unexplored and important dimension of decision-making for people facing serious illness.
objectivesWe conducted a scoping review to answer the following research questions: (1) How do people making treatment choices conceive of legacy? and (2) What treatment choices do people make with legacy in mind? ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Participants included people facing serious illness who discussed how they wanted to be remembered after their own death, or how they hoped to impact others, as they made treatment choices. Studies in English published between 1990 and 2022 were included. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: We conducted searches in electronic databases including Medline/PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, SocialWork, AnthropologyPlus, Web of Science, ProQuest and EMBASE databases. DATA SYNTHESIS: We used an electronic screening tool to screen abstracts and review full-text articles suitable for inclusion. We analysed included articles using Atlas.ti. We constructed tables and narratively synthesised the findings.
resultsWe identified three major intersecting legacy goals that influence choices people facing serious illness make about their treatment and health behaviours, and the types of choices people make with legacy in mind. The three legacy goals are: remembrance of the individual self, remembrance of the social self and impact on others' well-being.
conclusionsWe identify the importance of legacy to patient treatment choices. Understanding for whom this construct is important, what types of legacy goals people hold and how those goals impact treatment choices is necessary to provide patient-centred whole-person care to people facing serious illness.
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.