ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
"Because this is my body": patients', families' and health professionals' perspectives on family-oriented informed consent in China.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment Preferences for Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Harbin, China: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Patients, Caregivers, and Hematologists.The patient · 2026Article
- Motivation and challenges in decision making for gastrostomy tube placement and use: a focus on patients with cancer and dysphagia.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Proactive Screening Beliefs in Chinese High-Risk Patients of Panvascular Disease from the Perspective of Health Belief Model: A Qualitative Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Patient-Reported Perceptions of Surgical Informed Consent Communication in Elective General Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Chinese Tertiary Hospital.Patient preference and adherence · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn China’s clinical settings, it is common for families to have the final say in informed consent when the patient has a terminal or critical illness, even when the patients are fully competent. This practice is different from the individual-based pattern in the majority of Western countries, which is grounded in respect for individual autonomy. One common justification of family-oriented informed consent (FOIC) is that Chinese patients prefer to have their families make decisions on their behalf, and this aligns with China’s familial culture, which emphasises relational autonomy. However, recent empirical findings show that FOIC is not as widely supported by Chinese patients as is often assumed.
methodsIn this study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 Chinese patients, 14 family caregivers, and 9 health professionals in two megacities in northern China to explore their perceptions and attitudes of FOIC. Their experiences of and attitudes towards FOIC were explored.
resultsMany family and patient participants believed FOIC is a good way to preserve hope for patients and therefore supported the approach. However, when imagining themselves as patients, many of them preferred individual-based informed consent, citing a patient’s right and autonomy as the reasons. Healthcare professionals were conflicted on FOIC. They acknowledge the impact of familial culture but also mentioned practical factors that may equally contribute to FOIC.
conclusionThe interviews of this study and the literature indicate there are similarities between China and the West when it comes to family involvement in decision making which may have been overlooked or downplayed. The qualitative findings with participants reveal that there are other equally significant social-economic factors such as medical violence contributing to the prevalence of FOIC. Although FOIC is widespread in China, familial culture neither fully explains the practice nor provides an adequate justification for it.
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.