ArticleJournal of general and family medicine2025
Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in Japanese home care: A cross-sectional survey.
Article in Journal of general and family medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in Japanese home care: A cross-sectional survey.Journal of general and family medicine · 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
Background: In Japan, legal and social concerns exist about withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (LST) even at the end of life. This study aimed to investigate the experience of physicians and nurses involved in home care with LST withdrawal. Methods: A web-based questionnaire survey was conducted among physicians and nurses who were members of the Japanese Association for Home Care Medicine in 2020. The survey collected data on the experience of respondents with withdrawing LST, the decision-making processes involved in withdrawing treatment, and their experience with patients attempting voluntarily stopping eating and drinking (VSED). Results: Results from 203 respondents, including 150 physicians and 53 nurses, showed that the most commonly withdrawn LSTs were intravenous infusions (115 respondents), tube feeding (69 respondents), and oral administration of medicine (74 respondents). A few respondents withdrew respiratory management, such as mechanical ventilation (11 respondents) or home oxygen therapy (12 respondents). The main diagnoses of patients who had LSTs withdrawn were malignancy, senility, and dementia. Many respondents made decisions through discussions with the families of patients (117 respondents) or multidisciplinary discussions at their facilities (80 respondents). There were 23 respondents who made the decision alone, and they were all physicians. Thirty-two respondents had experience with patients who had completed VSED. Conclusion: It was found that many Japanese home care physicians and nurses had experienced withdrawal of LSTs, and a significant number among them had experienced patients attempting VSED. Given this situation, there is an urgent need to provide ethics support in Japanese home 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.