ArticleBMJ open2025
Cross-sectional survey on public attitudes and factors related to physician-assisted dying in Taiwan.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- "Reconciling"- conceptualising the grieving process of family members involved in assisted dying: a grounded formal theory.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- The impact of suicide beliefs on support for suicide prevention and physician-assisted suicide.BMC psychiatry · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the public's stance on physician-assisted dying (PAD) in Taiwan across different PAD scenarios and identify demographic and psychosocial factors associated with the levels of support.
designCross-sectional survey design. Independent variables included individual sociodemographic characteristics, healthcare professionals, perceived quality of life, formal caregiver experience, Patient Right to Autonomy Act (PRAA) awareness and advance care planning (ACP) preparedness.
settingAn online survey of the general population in Taiwan was conducted in 2022.
participantsA total of 3922 Taiwanese adults who completed all survey questions. OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement levels with PAD in three scenarios: terminal illnesses, unbearable non-terminal pain and severe cognitive impairments. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine agreement with each PAD scenario as separate dependent variables in the first three models and overall agreement across all scenarios as the dependent variable in the fourth model.
resultsHigh levels of public support for PAD were observed, with 86.2% supporting PAD for terminal illnesses, 79.2% for unbearable non-terminal pain and 72.6% for severe cognitive impairments. Support for PAD was associated with factors including younger age, male gender, lack of religious affiliation, a non-healthcare professional background, employment as a formal caregiver, lack of awareness of PRAA and higher preparedness in ACP.
conclusionsThe results indicate a potential cultural shift in Taiwan towards greater emphasis on individual autonomy in end-of-life decisions. There appears to be significant public support for developing legal frameworks in favour of PAD, carefully considering the psychosocial factors that highlight the importance of individual rights in end-of-life care.
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.