ReviewMedicine, health care, and philosophy2025
A normativity mapping review on end-of-life care in long-term care institutions by authors from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
Review in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article presents the findings of a "normativity mapping review" designed to make visible the breadth of normative understandings at work within interdisciplinary scholarship on end-of-life care in long-term care institutions. The scope of the literature was limited to peer-reviewed articles authored by scholars affiliated with institutions in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. Terms and slogans associated with the hospice movement were used as keywords to search for literature in both German and English. During data analysis, values, frameworks, and actions were systematically extracted from the articles. Actions were then clustered into four groups: one involving actions aimed at planning future end-of-life decision-making; another focused on transforming cultures of care; a third encompassing end-of-life practices; and a fourth consisting of residual actions. A comparison of two of these groups shows that normative understandings of end-of-life care in long-term care institutions take shape around two poles-a procedural pole, involving standardised tools that can be used in specific practices to address challenges and improve care, and a substantive pole, centred on the embodied competencies and moral sensibilities of caregivers in realising visions of good 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.