ArticleBMC medical ethics2024
Views on medical assistance in dying and related arguments: a survey of doctors and nurses at a university hospital.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2021, a survey was conducted among doctors and nurses at Landspítali Iceland University Hospital (LIUH) regarding their views on medical assistance in dying (MAID) and the underlying arguments, the inclusion criteria and modality of implementation. Surveys on identically defined study groups in 1995 and 2010 were used for comparison.
methodsThe survey was sent to 357 doctors and 516 nurses working at LIUH. It included seven questions and several subquestions. Participants' answers were compared by profession, age group, and specialisation status. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used.
resultsA total of 135 doctors (38% response rate) and 103 nurses (20% response rate) answered the survey, representing 27% of the study group. A total of 145 (61%) participants were positive about MAID, with the most common argument being patient autonomy. The 95% margin of error for this view was ± 6.2%. Compared to 19% in 2010, support for MAID had tripled in 2021 (p < 0.05). Approximately 18% of participants did not support MAID of any kind, mostly due to arguments regarding preserving life or inconsistencies with the role of health care professionals. Finally, 19% of participants were uncertain of their views towards MAID, mostly due to the high level of complexity of the matter.
conclusionCompared to previous surveys, a large increase in positive attitudes towards MAID was observed among this study population. The results revealed the reasons for participants' attitudes; weighing patients' dignity/autonomy against professionals' duty to "not to kill"/palliate and showing some differences between professions.
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.