Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41146154›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2025

Age and grit in prioritising intensive care: - a mixed-methods approach of normative challenges.

Mia Svantesson, Jarl Gustav, Falk Wiebke, Sandman Lars

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Mia SvantessonUniversity Health Care Research Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive care, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. mia.svantesson@regionorebrolan.se.
Jarl GustavUniversity Health Care Research Center, Department of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Falk WiebkeDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive care, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Sandman LarsDepartment of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntensive care unit (ICU) admissions among older patients are increasing, posing significant challenges to already strained healthcare systems. Decision-making around ICU admission in times of limited resources may provide important knowledge about difficult prioritisations, particularly for older patients. Thus, the aim was to investigate ICU-admission decisions for older patients with COVID-19.

methodsA mixed-methods approach. We audio-recorded ten COVID Rounds and nine Moral Case Deliberations for 34 patients across three Swedish hospitals during the pandemic, and collected data from medical records of 329 patients aged ≥ 65 diagnosed with COVID-19. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis and multiple regression.

resultsAmong 239 patients with documented decisions in medical records, 56% included explicit justifications. The justifications included considerations of medical benefit (not-too- ill/too-ill), general condition (good/frail), age (not-too-old/high age), professional duty (benefit of the doubt/do no harm) and "worth giving it a go" (grit and will to live/lack of will and coping). A minority (31%) of decisions favoured ICU admission. Justifications supporting admission were predominantly drawn from discussions in COVID Rounds and MCDs, where patient grit was a recurring argument. In regression analyses, age ≥ 80 years was the only factor significantly associated with not being admitted to ICU and having a documented justification. Few decisions explicitly referred to COVID-19-specific factors.

conclusionOur findings reflect patterns similar to pre-pandemic ICU decision-making, suggesting continuity in clinical reasoning. However, the limited documentation of justifications-especially in favour of admission-warrants attention, emphasising the need for clearer reasoning in medical records. Our findings identify chronological age as a key triage factor, normatively supported by the ethical principles of non-maleficence, justice, and Sweden's legal priority-setting principle of Needs and Solidarity-which emphasises care only when benefit is likely. We therefore advocate for national (and potentially international) guidance on triage systems that support a palliative approach for very old patients. While grit may be relevant to ICU admission due to its link to potential benefit, its use raises ethical concerns, particularly in relation to Needs and Solidarity and Human Dignity. We recommend its cautious application pending further research.

Indexed as

COVID-19Critical CareDecision MakingHealth PrioritiesIntensive Care UnitsPatient AdmissionAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsFemaleHumansMalePandemicsSARS-CoV-2Sweden

Identifiers

PMID41146154
PMCPMC12557847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.