ArticleResearch in health services & regions2025
A closer look at regional differences in euthanasia practices in the Netherlands.
Article in Research in health services & regions, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn research on practice variation, the body of knowledge on regional differences in the incidence of euthanasia is limited, and important questions have remained unanswered until now.
objectiveThis paper aims to gain insight in the differences between euthanasia practices in high-incidence regions and low-incidence regions, by looking at (potential differences in) a) patient characteristics; b) timelines and the process of euthanasia; c) the setting in which euthanasia takes place; and d) morally relevant themes.
methodsThis explorative study uses a unique and fully anonymized dataset based on notes made by one of the authors (TAB) during a period of nine years in which he was an ethicist in a Dutch Euthanasia Review Committee. We analyzed these data using descriptive statistics and testing for statistical significance of differences in euthanasia practices in high-incidence regions and low-incidence regions.
resultsSome significant differences were found between high and low-incidence regions. Compared to low-incidence regions, high-incidence regions were characterized by patients being older at time of death, a shorter time span between patients' first euthanasia request and their eventual death, patients more often having a GP as a consulting doctor, and euthanasia more frequently being the main dying means (as opposed to assisted suicide). The low incidence regions had somewhat younger patients, more patients with dementia, a longer life expectancy, more psychiatrists as consulting doctors, and more assisted suicides compared to the higher incidence regions.
conclusionThis study adds new insights to the existing literature on (regional differences in) end-of-life care, with a specific focus on euthanasia. Until now, euthanasia practices have mainly been studied at national levels. National data show significant differences between regions. The black box of local practices has not been opened before. Our results have implications for practice, as they may inform discussions on appropriate care at the end of life in general, and euthanasia in particular.
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.