ArticleBMJ open2024
Perspectives and insights of critical care clinicians, patients and families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds around end-of-life care in an ICU: a scoping review protocol.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveProtocol to explore what is known about communication between critical care providers and patients and families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (defined as people who are either from minority ethnic groups, non-English-speaking backgrounds who may have diverse cultural, linguistic, spiritual and religious affiliations and opinions) about death, dying, end-of-life care and organ donation in the intensive care unit (ICU).
introductionPatients from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds experience barriers to optimised care when admitted to the ICU. These barriers appear to derive from differences in language, cultural, societal and ethical expectations between patients, their families and healthcare professionals. These barriers may significantly impact the delivery of end-of-life care to patients from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Therefore, this has the potential for inadequate management of medical, psychological and existential distress. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies of all designs reporting for adult (age ≥18 years) patients and family members from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds at end-of-life in the ICU setting will be included. Studies that report results for patients aged <18 years or that are based outside the ICU will be excluded.
methodsRelevant sources will be retrieved, and their citation details will be imported into the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information. This scoping review was guided by the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A systematic search was conducted in EBSCOhost, Web of Science, PubMed Central and SciELO, OVID Medline, CINAHL, and Scopus, limited to English-language publications, without date limitation. Key study characteristics and findings will be extracted using a data extraction tool developed by the reviewers. Anticipating heterogeneous study designs, findings will be presented as a thematic synthesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is a protocol for a scoping review, formal ethics approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) of the Local Health Network will be obtained for research projects that could potentially stem from this review and will then be subsequently disseminated through proper channels.
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.