Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41029144›Full record

ArticleMedicine2025

Phenomenological study on decision fatigue among surrogate decision-makers for ICU patients.

Yaoning Zhuang, Peipei Li, Ying Xu, Lisang Fu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yaoning ZhuangIntensive Care Unit, Affiliated Hospital of Putian University, Putian, China.
Peipei LiPutian University, Putian, China.
Ying XuIntensive Care Unit, Affiliated Hospital of Putian University, Putian, China.
Lisang FuDepartment of Nursing, Hospital of Putian University, Putian, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0180-0686

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surrogate decision-makers often face multiple medical decisions under psychological and time pressures, leading to decision fatigue. Current research on decision fatigue in intensive care unit (ICU) surrogates focuses primarily on quantitative aspects, lacking an in-depth exploration of their experiences. This study aims to explore the experience of decision fatigue among surrogate decision-makers for ICU patients within the first 48 hours of ICU admission and to provide insights for clinical medical staff to implement decision support strategies and improve decision quality. This study employed purposive sampling, with sufficient samples being reached when no new themes emerged from the interviews, to select surrogate decision-makers of patients admitted to the ICU within 48 hours. Then, qualitative phenomenological research methods were employed for semi-structured interviews. Colaizzi method was used to analyze and refine the interview data. Ten surrogate decision-makers were included in this study. Surrogate decision-makers experienced decision fatigue during the early stages of ICU admission, characterized by 5 primary themes: emotional exhaustion, increased cognitive load, hesitation in decision-making, conflicting decisions, and inadequate support systems. Within the initial 48 hours in the ICU, surrogate decision-makers of patients may experience decision fatigue during the decision-making process. Medical staff should be aware of this phenomenon, take appropriate intervention measures, and provide decision-making support to enhance the quality of decisions.

Indexed as

Decision MakingFatigueIntensive Care UnitsProxyAdultAgedFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative Researchdecision fatigueICUqualitative researchsurrogate decision-makers

Identifiers

PMID41029144
PMCPMC13593095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.