ArticleBMC palliative care2024
Physicians' experiences and perceptions about withholding and withdrawal life-sustaining treatment in Chiang Mai University Hospital: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning in the ICU: Predicting Mortality in Patients with Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli Bloodstream Infections.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding advance care planning among emergency department healthcare providers in China: a multicenter cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- End-of-life care in Moroccan ICUs: ethical challenges, practices, and perspectives of intensivists.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
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
backgroundWithholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in end-of-life patients is a challenging ethical issue faced by physicians. Understanding physicians' experiences and factors influencing their decisions can lead to improvement in end-of-life care.
objectivesTo investigate the experiences of Thai physicians when making decisions regarding the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in end-of-life situations. Additionally, the study aims to assess the consensus among physicians regarding the factors that influence these decisions and to explore the influence of families or surrogates on the decision-making process of physicians, utilizing case-based surveys.
methodsA web-based survey was conducted among physicians practicing in Chiang Mai University Hospital (June - October 2022).
resultsAmong 251 physicians (response rate 38.3%), most of the respondents (60.6%) reported that they experienced withholding or withdrawal treatment in end-of-life patients. Factors that influence their decision-making include patient's preferences (100%), prognosis (93.4%), patients' quality of life (92.8%), treatment burden (89.5%), and families' request (87.5%). For a chronic disease with comatose condition, the majority of the physicians (47%) chose to continue treatments, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In contrast, only 2 physicians (0.8%) would do everything, in cases when families or surrogates insisted on stopping the treatment. This increased to 78.1% if the families insisted on continuing treatment.
conclusionWithholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments are common in Thailand. The key factors influencing their decision-making process included patient's preferences and medical conditions and families' requests. Effective communication and early engagement in advanced care planning between physicians, patients, and families empower them to align treatment choices with personal values.
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.