Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41969837›Full record

ArticleFuture healthcare journal2026

Can versus should: Public expectation and the high-intervention death - A practical guide for clinicians.

Sophia Henderson, Calvin Lightbody, Mark Taubert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Future healthcare journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sophia HendersonDepartment of Intensive Care, Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Combe Park, Bath, BA1 3NG, UK.
Calvin LightbodyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University Hospital Hairmyres, NHS Lanarkshire, East Kilbride, Glasgow, G75 8RG, UK.
Mark TaubertDepartment of Palliative Medicine, Velindre University NHS Trust, Cardiff, Wales, CF14 2TL, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Escalation of medical intervention near the end of life has become increasingly common, often driven by public misperceptions of medical capabilities, cultural narratives of 'fighting' disease, and clinicians' discomfort with discussing limitations of more extreme treatment regimens. The result is the high-intervention death: intensive, invasive and frequently misaligned with patient values. This article examines the dynamics underpinning these decisions from the perspectives of emergency medicine, intensive care and palliative medicine. We describe the consequences of late acceptance of dying, the absence of advance and future care planning, and societal unpreparedness for death. We propose practical strategies to support better decision-making, including early goals-of-care discussions, compassionate communication, and a cultural shift towards acknowledging death as a realistic and acceptable outcome. Restoring humane, value-aligned care which still includes a plethora of treatments, albeit less invasive ones, requires clinicians to balance medical capability with compassion, clarity and courage.

Indexed as

CommunicationDecision-makingDyingExpectationResuscitation

Identifiers

PMID41969837
PMCPMC13063253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.