ArticlePalliative & supportive care2025
The use of palliative care by people of Islamic faith and their preferences and decisions at the end of life: A scoping review.
Article in Palliative & supportive care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nurses' stressful experiences in providing palliative and end-of-life care for children: A meta-synthesis.Palliative & supportive care · 2026Review
- Making Sense of the Final Moments: A Qualitative Study of Informal Caregivers' Perception of Good Death in the Bereavement Process.Scandinavian journal of caring sciences · 2026Article
- Frames of dying: a qualitative study of end-of-life experiences of terminal Arab patients.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- Barriers to the development of palliative care in Islamic countries: Navigating faith, culture, and ethics.Palliative care and social practice · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe use of palliative care (PC) services from people of Islamic faith is seen limited. There are a fundamental lack of PC services appropriate to the target group and a lack of knowledge and acceptance. The transition from curative to PC is often perceived as problematic. Factors influencing PC use and end-of-life (EOL) decisions and preferences among people of Islamic faith are largely unclear.
methodsA scoping review was carried out using the methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute. Studies of any design, published in English, German, or Arabic, and published by the end of August 2022, were eligible for inclusion. The systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Study statements were analyzed with a clear distinction between PC as EOL care and other EOL decisions, such as euthanasia, withdrawal, or withholding of one or more life-sustaining treatments or medications.
resultsSixty studies published between 1998 and 2022 were included. Only a few studies made statements about EOL care. The majority of studies focused on forms of euthanasia and indicated negative attitudes toward euthanasia, assisted suicide, and some other EOL decisions. Reasons for rejection include theological arguments, ethical and moral considerations, and others. Reasons for acceptance were principles of good death and dying, medical justifications, and others. The following barriers to the use of PC were identified laws and policies, lack of necessary resources, cultural norms and values, structure of the health-care system, communication and interaction between patients, relatives, and health-care staff, and others. SIGNIFICANCE OF
resultsThis review identifies the preferences for and difficulties in making EOL decisions and identifies barriers to specific PC for the Muslim population. Findings suggest how these barriers might be overcome.
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.