Observational studyBMC medical ethics2024
Issues and implications of the life-sustaining treatment decision act: comparing the data from the survey and clinical data of inpatients at the end-of-life process.
Observational study in BMC medical ethics, 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.
- Multimodal Prediction of Progression Toward Brain Death After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- When advance directives clash with family consent: designing an operational framework for end-of-life decision-making in China and Korea.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Awareness, attitudes, and educational needs regarding the life-sustaining treatment decision-making act in Korea among healthcare providers and medical students: a comparative analysis.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth professionals had difficulty choosing the right time to discuss life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) since the Korean Act was passed in 2018.
objectiveThis study aimed to understand how patients decide to undergo LSTs in clinical practice and to compare the perceptions of these decisions among health professionals, patients, and families with suggestions to support the self-directed decisions of patients. RESEARCH
designA retrospective observational study with electronic medical records (EMRs) and a descriptive survey was used.
methodsThe data obtained from the EMRs included all adult patients who died in end-of-life care at a university hospital in 2021. We also conducted a survey of 214 health professionals and 100 patients and their families (CNUH IRB approval no. 2022-07-006).
resultsBased on the EMR data of 916 patients in end-of-life care, 78.4% signed do-not-attempt-resuscitation consents, 5.6% completed the documents for LSTs, and 10.2% completed both forms. LST decisions were mostly made by family members (81.5%). Most survey participants agreed that meaningless LSTs should be suspended, and the decision should be made by patients. Patients and family members (42-56%) and health professionals (56-58%) recommended discussing LST suspension when the patient is still conscious but with predicted deterioration of their condition. The suffering experienced by the patient was considered to be a priority by most patients (58%) and families (54%) during the decision-making process, while health professionals considered "the possibility of the patient's recovery" to be the highest priority (43-55%).
conclusionsThere is still a significant discrepancy in the perceptions of LST decisions among health professionals, patients, and their families despite high awareness of the Act. This situation makes it challenging to implement the Act to ensure respect for the rights of patients to self-determination and dignified end-of-life. Further effort is needed to improve the awareness of LSTs and to clarify the ambiguity of document preparation timing.
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.