ArticleBMC medical ethics2024
Hematologists' perspective on advance directives, a French national cross-sectional survey - the ADORE-H study.
Article 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 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.
- Advanced cancer patients' knowledge and opinions regarding the French law on advance directives: a multicenter cross-sectional study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Life-Supporting Treatment Limitations in Patients Who Die Within 48 Hours After ICU Admission: A French, Multicenter, Observational, Exploratory Study.Critical care explorations · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe onset of hematological malignancies can lead to acute and critical situations. It can also result in adverse outcome despite the significant advancements made in their therapeutic management. In this context, advance care planning and, in particular, advance directives (AD) play an essential role. However, the use of AD in patients with malignant hematological conditions remains very rare. MATERIAL &
methodsThe aim was to evaluate the perception of AD by hematologists. We conducted a national online survey in France. All hematologist working in a hospital setting and treating malignant hemopathies were solicited. The questionnaire covered five areas: personal perception of AD; assistance in writing AD; patient information about AD; use of ADs; and demographic data.
results318 hematologists (33.7% of the whole population), working in 103 different centers across France participated in the study. 72.6% (n = 231) of the respondents believed that AD could be beneficial for patient's care. Only 32.7% talked about AD with their patients on a regular basis. The lack of utilization was correlated with the fear of creating anxiety for the patient (64.9%; n = 172) or for relatives (30.9%; n = 80), as well as the belief that AD were deemed inappropriate for their patients (57.8%; n = 145). 19.5% (n = 62) of responding hematologist offered their assistance to patients in writing AD. This proportion was higher in physicians who had previously worked in palliative care unit (35,6% vs. 16,8%, p = 0,0004).
conclusionThe majority of the surveyed hematologist hold a positive opinion about AD. However, only a few discuss the matter with their patients. The fear of consequences for patients and relatives, particularly anxiety, remains the primary barrier to providing information about AD.
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.