ArticleBMC palliative care2026
Dying as a 'normal', 'ordinary' or 'natural' process in palliative care: a systematic scoping review and narrative synthesis.
Article in BMC palliative care, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organization definition of palliative care describes dying as a 'normal' process and it, along with related ideas of 'ordinary' or 'natural' dying, is important in understanding what a 'good' death is. This scoping review aims to explore how dying has been described as 'normal', 'ordinary' or 'natural' in empirical palliative care literature to provide palliative care stakeholders with evidence-based insights into how this concept may enable quality dying experiences and a 'good' death.
methodsA scoping review was conducted by searching six online databases (Medline (via Ovid), Embase (via Ovid), PsycINFO (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), Web of Science, and Scopus) for empirical English-language palliative care literature that explicitly described dying as 'normal', 'ordinary', 'natural', or their interchangeable terms 'standard, 'typical' or 'usual'. A narrative synthesis was used to present the clusters of features associated with their descriptions.
resultsTwenty-one studies used 'normal', 'ordinary', 'natural' and 'typical' dying. They were often employed as a single statement despite some authors' concerns regarding the lack of conceptual clarity. Interchangeability between 'normal' and 'natural' dying was observed. Understandings of 'normal', 'natural' and 'typical' were found to be diverse, subjective, and contextually bounded. Although there was some evidence that 'normal', 'natural' and 'typical' dying can influence the quality of dying experiences in palliative care, there was no evidence for 'ordinary' dying due to a lack of explicit use in the included studies.
conclusionsUnderstandings of dying as 'normal', 'natural' or 'typical' are held by clinicians and patients to play an important role in shaping the quality of dying experiences and providing a 'good' death in palliative care. However, the use of each idea remains heterogeneous, with conflicting definitions across terms. The diffuse evidence base suggests that the potential benefits, harms or limitations of their use in palliative care are therefore unclear. For this reason, we recommend caution regarding their use in practice or policy.
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.