ArticleBMC palliative care2025
Conceptual barriers to palliative sedation: insights from focus group interviews with specialist palliative care professionals.
Article in BMC palliative care, 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
backgroundPalliative sedation is considered an essential measure when other methods cannot provide sufficient symptom control in end-of-life. Prior research suggests that health care professionals find boundaries between palliative sedation, routine symptom management and euthanasia ambiguous. Appropriate implementation of palliative sedation depends on palliative care clinicians being confident in conceptual understanding of palliative sedation. The aim of this study was to understand specialist palliative care professionals' conceptualization of distinctions between symptom management, palliative sedation, and euthanasia; how perceived boundary ambiguities act as barriers to timely initiation of palliative sedation; and potential strategies to overcome these barriers.
methodsThis is an explorative qualitative phenomenological study, based on focus group interviews, utilizing reflexive thematic analysis. Four focus groups were interviewed at specialist palliative care departments across four Norwegian hospitals. Participants were 11 nurses and 12 physicians with at least one year of experience within specialist palliative care.
resultsThrough thematic analysis two core themes were developed; the distinction between symptom management and palliative sedation, and the distinction between palliative sedation and euthanasia. Important sub-themes were definitional uncertainties, complexity of gradual medication titration, timing of sedation, indications for sedation, communication, and concerns about hastening death.
conclusionEven within specialist palliative care, different end-of-life treatment concepts are not experienced clear-cut. These conceptual ambiguities impede appropriate initiation of palliative sedation. Overcoming such barriers requires multi-level interventions: enhancing practitioners' definitional knowledge, fostering awareness of clinical intention during end-of-life treatment, promoting interprofessional dialogue, and developing more explicit clinical guidelines.
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.