ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025
Continuous deep sedation until death in terminal cancer: a lexicometric analysis of professionals' and relatives' experience.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionContinuous deep sedation (CDS) provides palliative relief for intractable suffering, especially in the context of cancer. This procedure is recognized to create a specific experiential context for both professionals implementing it and relatives supporting the patient. The aim of the current study was to explore and compare the perceptions and experiences concerning CDS.
methodsThe APSY-SED study is a multicenter, prospective, and longitudinal study using a mixed-methods design. We present here the qualitative results derived from a lexicometric analysis of interviews conducted with relatives and healthcare professionals at T1 (when CDS is initiated).
resultsThe study included 27 relatives and 22 healthcare professionals. Relatives stressed the finality of time, experiencing sedation with ambivalence: both as a relief for the patient and a source of emotional burden for themselves. They highlighted the importance of respecting patient autonomy and wishes, with strong emphasis on communication and trust in healthcare professionals. Meanwhile, professionals focused on patient care, balancing ethical and legal considerations while upholding patient autonomy. They noted practical and procedural strains around decision-making and underscored the essential role of family communication throughout the sedation process. DISCUSSION: These findings underscore the complexity of CDS, revealing the nuanced interplay between relatives' ambivalence and healthcare professionals' ethical concerns. Communication clearly emerges as a pivotal element in reconciling these perspectives, particularly around patient autonomy, family involvement, and shared decision-making. Clear legal and ethical guidelines can reduce professionals' moral distress, and structured education programs for relatives may improve their experience of sedation care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41148386What 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.