ArticleBMJ open2024
Public attitudes to emergency care treatment plans: a population survey of Great Britain.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation practice and policy in Ireland: a mixed-methods study of service user and advocacy group perspectives.Health research policy and systems · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo measure community attitudes to emergency care and treatment plans (ECTPs).
designPopulation survey.
settingGreat Britain.
participantsAs part of the British Social Attitudes Survey, sent to randomly selected addresses in Great Britain, 1135 adults completed a module on ECTPs. The sample was nationally representative in terms of age and location, 619 (55%) were female and 1005 (89%) were of white origin. OUTCOME MEASURES: People's attitudes having an ECTP for themselves now, and in the future; how comfortable they might be having a discussion about an ECTP and how they thought such a plan might impact on their future care.
resultsPredominantly, respondents were in favour of people being able to have an ECTP, with 908/1135 (80%) being at least somewhat in favour. People in good health were less likely than those with activity-limiting chronic disease to want a plan at present (52% vs 64%, OR 1.78 (95% CI 1.30 to 2.45) p<0.001). Developing a long-term condition or becoming disabled would lead 42% (467/1112) and 43% (481/1112) of individuals, respectively, to want an ECTP. More, 634/1112 (57%) would want an ECTP if they developed a life-threatening condition. Predominantly, 938/1135 (83%) respondents agreed that an ECTP would help avoid their family needing to make difficult decisions on their behalf, and 939/1135 (83%) that it would ensure doctors and nurses knew their wishes. Nevertheless, a small majority-628/1135 (55%)-agreed that there was a serious risk of the plan being out of date when needed. A substantial minority-330/1135 (29%)-agreed that an ECTP might result in them not receiving life-saving treatment.
conclusionsThere is general support for the use of ECTPs by people of all ages. Nevertheless, many respondents felt these might be out of date when needed and prevent people receiving life-saving treatment.
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.