ArticleIndian journal of palliative care
Family Physicians' Decision-making in Mechanical Ventilation Withdrawal: A Cross-sectional Study.
Article in Indian journal of palliative care. 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
Objectives: In Thailand, family physicians play a central role in palliative care, which often includes the withdrawal of mechanical ventilation (WMV) as part of life-sustaining treatment cessation. However, the rationale behind these decisions varies significantly among practitioners. This study examines key factors that influence Thai family physicians' decisions to discontinue mechanical ventilation for terminally ill patients. Materials and Methods: We conducted an online survey from December 2021 to January 2022, employing a customised questionnaire. Its content validity and reliability were affirmed, achieving Cronbach's alpha scores of 0.81 and 0.88 in separate sections. Results: Among 164 respondents, 123 (75%) had previously participated in WMV decisions. Key influencing factors included the involvement of family or surrogate decision-makers (SDMs), physicians' experience with end-of-life care and patients' explicit opposition to ventilator support. Urgent requests from families or SDMs and the imminence of patient mortality were also pivotal. A consensus on the ethical appropriateness of WMV was observed. Notably, physicians with over 3 years of experience in palliative care were significantly more likely to discontinue ventilation (odds ratio [OR] = 5.30; Conclusion: The decisions of Thai family physicians to cease mechanical ventilation in terminally ill patients are strongly influenced by family or SDMs' input, their own experiential background and the expressed wishes of the patients regarding ventilator assistance.
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.