ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Awareness, attitudes, and educational needs regarding the life-sustaining treatment decision-making act in Korea among healthcare providers and medical students: a comparative analysis.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Life-Sustaining Treatment (LST) Decision-Making Act is a South Korean law that aims to empower patients by providing them with more autonomy in end-of-life care decisions. However, there are significant differences between the law’s intentions and its implementation in clinical practice. It is essential to understand the perceptions of current and future healthcare professionals regarding LST in order to improve education, policy and patient-centred decision-making. This study aimed to compare the knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of LST among practicing healthcare professionals and medical students with clinical exposure to LST decision-making.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted from August to December 2023 at a tertiary hospital in South Korea. The participants included healthcare providers (physicians, trainees, and nurses) and medical students with clinical experience. The survey assessed self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of the LST Decision-Making Act. Group differences were analyzed using chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses.
resultsA total of 297 participants responded, including 204 healthcare providers and 93 medical students. Healthcare providers reported significantly higher self-perceived knowledge (88.7% vs. 52.7%) and confidence in participating in LST decisions (69.6% vs. 37.6%) than medical students (both p < 0.001). Both groups supported the ethical purpose of the Act and the need for advance directives, but their educational priorities differed. Providers emphasized procedural knowledge, whereas students prioritized ethical education. Perceptions regarding the timing, decision-makers, and withdrawal of treatment varied. Multivariate analysis revealed that professional roles were independently associated with perceived knowledge and competence. Many healthcare providers have reported systemic barriers, including complex documentation and limited patient or caregiver understanding. Notably, over 25% of providers indicated a continued reliance on Do-Not-Resuscitate forms because of procedural challenges.
conclusionsThis study revealed substantial differences in perceptions of LST between healthcare providers and medical students. The findings underscore the need for improved educational programs and standardized protocols to effectively implement LST legislation and highlight significant implementation gaps.
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.