ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2025
Exploring the public attitudes toward euthanasia legalization in China, especially among individuals with mental disorders: a national cross-sectional study.
Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Family health as a mediator between work-family conflict and depression in working parents: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe legalization of euthanasia remains a highly contentious issue in China, with no comprehensive cross-sectional studies conducted in the country to date. However, in end-of-life decision-making among terminally ill patients, psychosocial factors demonstrate significantly greater predictive power than somatic determinants.
methodsA national cross-sectional study based on multistage random sampling was conducted from June 20 to August 31, 2022, in China. We employed a stratified random sampling method, collecting a total of 31,449 questionnaires of Chinese residents aged above 18. We employed a multivariate ordinal logistic regression model, considering various factors. Additionally, we conducted subgroup analyses to address potential confounding factors and fitted the same model to obtain the corresponding coefficients, odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and P-values, which were used to assess the results.
resultsSeveral factors were found to influence the attitude of euthanasia legalization in China. Lower age, higher educational level, and higher family monthly income showed positive attitudes toward euthanasia legalization. Comparative analysis revealed that females were more likely to support euthanasia legalization than males. Moreover, adherents of Buddhism or Islam demonstrated significantly lower support for euthanasia legalization compared to non-affiliated respondents. Individuals majored in medicine were more likely to support euthanasia legalization than other academic disciplines. Notably, individuals living with mental disorders or other chronic diseases showed a greater tendency to support euthanasia legalization. Compared to individuals who did not encounter any serious events, those who had experienced the death of a close relative had higher scores supporting euthanasia legalization.
conclusionsBasic demographic information, economic status, physical health status and lived experience are associated with attitudes toward euthanasia legalization. This study can contribute towards promoting more holistic and balanced legislation and policy implementation on euthanasia, reconciling considerations of individual autonomy, medical ethics, and broader societal interests.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.