ArticlePalliative medicine2025
Associations between physicians' personal preferences for end-of-life decisions and their own clinical practice: PROPEL survey study in Europe, North America, and Australia.
Article in Palliative medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Attitudes of physicians, nurses, and the general public toward End-of-Life (EoL) decisions in European countries: an umbrella review.BMC medical ethics · 2025Pooled it
- Assisted Dying Makes Us Think Differently About Care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- How do intensive care physicians wish to die? A cross-sectional study on end-of-life preferences and the role of palliative care.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- How do physicians perceive and manage the influence of their personal end-of-life preferences on clinical practice and end-of-life decision-making with patients? An international qualitative study.Palliative care and social practice · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysicians have significant influence on end-of-life decisions. Therefore, it is important to understand the connection between physicians' personal end-of-life care preferences and clinical practice, and whether there is congruence between what they prefer for themselves and for patients.
aimStudy to what extent physicians believe their personal end-of-life preferences impact their clinical practice and to what extent physicians' personal treatment option preferences differ from what they prefer for their patients.
designA cross-sectional survey was conducted from May 2022 to February 2023. SETTING/
participantsEight jurisdictions: Belgium, Italy, Canada, USA (Oregon, Wisconsin, and Georgia), and Australia (Victoria and Queensland). Three physician types were included: general practitioners, palliative care physicians, and other medical specialists.
resultsWe analyzed 1157 survey responses. Sixty-two percent of physicians acknowledge considering their own preferences when caring for patients at the end of life and 29.7% believe their personal preferences impact the recommendations they make. Palliative care physicians are less likely to consider their own preferences when caring for and making recommendations to patients. Congruence was found between what physicians prefer for patients and themselves with cardiopulmonary resuscitation considered "not a good option for both" by 99.1% of physicians. Incongruence was found with physicians considering some options "not good for the patient, but good for themselves"-palliative sedation (8.3%), physician-assisted suicide (7.0%), and euthanasia (11.6%).
conclusionPhysicians consider their own preferences when providing care and their preferences impact the recommendations they make to patients. Incongruence exists between what physicians prefer for themselves and what they prefer for patients.
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.