Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42301543›Full record

ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2026

Person-Centered Care at the End of Life: Challenging Ableism in Conversations About What Matters Most.

Alixe Ménard, Ramtin Hakimjavadi, Daniel Kobewka

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Alixe MénardDepartment of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. alimenard@ohri.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-5509-8960
Ramtin HakimjavadiDepartment of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Daniel KobewkaDepartment of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinicians often struggle with asking patients with progressive, life-limiting illnesses about the point at which pursuing longevity no longer aligns with their values. While person-centered care encourages exploring patients' goals and fears, directly asking individuals to identify conditions "worse than death" can inadvertently reinforce ableist assumptions that disability diminishes quality of life. Yet avoiding these discussions risks neglecting patient autonomy and failing to align treatment decisions with what matters most. This Perspective examines the ethical tensions clinicians face when discussing life-prolonging treatments and perceived intolerable states. Through a clinical case and review of current frameworks, we highlight how traditional approaches, often focused on functional decline, may unintentionally pathologize disability. We argue for a strength-based, person-centered approach that shifts conversations from identifying feared states to understanding sources of meaning, identity, connection, and purpose. Asking patients what helps them feel like themselves, what they value most, and what sustains their sense of dignity can yield actionable clinical guidance without relying on assumptions about suffering or worth. This reframing supports care plans that balance the desire to avoid harm with the preservation of autonomy and personhood, fostering end-of-life care that honors everyone's values, experiences, and definition of living well.

Indexed as

Patient-Centered CarePhysician-Patient RelationsTerminal CareDisability DiscriminationFemaleHumansMalePersonal AutonomyQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID42301543
PMCPMC13631187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.