ArticleNursing ethics2025
End-of-life care at home: Dignity of family caregivers.
Article in Nursing ethics, 2025. 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.
- "Reconciling"- conceptualising the grieving process of family members involved in assisted dying: a grounded formal theory.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Unclear boundaries: Family caregivers' invisible role in home-based palliative care in Norway: an exploratory analysis of secondary data from two previous studies.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Article
- Palliative care conditions managed at home and self-reported challenges experienced by informal home-based caregivers in Rwanda: a qualitative study.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- Navigating toward acceptance of death: Home-dwelling patients in the palliative phase.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- Exploring the lived experience of loneliness and social isolation in informal palliative caregivers: A systematic review.Palliative care and social practice · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare services are increasingly being shifted to home settings for patients nearing end-of-life. Consequently, the burden on family caregivers is significant. Their vulnerable situation remains poorly understood and there is little information available regarding their experiences of dignity.
aimThis study seeks to understand the experiences of family caregivers related to dignity and loss of dignity, aiming to provide a deeper insight into their situation when caring for a home-dwelling family member nearing end-of-life. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
participantsThis exploratory study consists of a second analysis combining data from two primary studies, including 24 family caregivers of a family member nearing end-of-life, and is founded upon Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Approval was obtained from the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research and was based on voluntary participation, informed consent, and confidentiality.
resultsThe following three main themes were identified: Having a meaningful existence within the living environment, being seen and valued as a family caregiver in relation with others and suffering in a space of loneliness. These contextual, relational, and existential perspectives were found to be closely interrelated. CONCLUSION AND FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: The dignity of family caregivers was closely tied to being seen as unique individuals, not merely caregivers, thereby requiring healthcare professionals (HCPs) to understand their personal needs. This study highlights the emotional distress and loneliness family caregivers feel in their dual role within the healthcare system, thereby calling for HCPs to adopt an attitude of gentleness and recognition to impart dignity-preserving care in homecare practices.
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.