ArticleBMC palliative care2026
Association between family-perceived quality of death and dying, prognostic awareness, and end-of-life discussions in five common diseases: a nationwide mortality follow-back study.
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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDiscussing prognosis and end-of-life (EOL) care with patients and physicians is a sensitive and critical aspect of EOL care. However, the association between prognostic awareness and EOL discussions and the quality of death and dying (QOD) remains uncertain. This study aimed to describe prognostic awareness and participation in EOL discussions among patients with common causes of death and to clarify their association with QOD.
methodsRetrospective nationwide mortality follow-back survey in Japan (Feb 2019; Feb 2020). Bereaved families of patients who died in hospitals or at home from cancer, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, pneumonia, or renal failure. The primary outcome was family-reported QOD. Exposures of interest included family-reported prognostic awareness and EOL discussions, including care settings and code statuses. Analyses were conducted separately by disease category and place of death. Logistic regression and generalized linear models were used for analysis.
resultsOf the 115,861 family members who were sent the questionnaires, we finally analyzed 50,641 responses. Accurate patient prognostic awareness ranged from 56.8% to 70.2% for patients with cancer and from 30.5% to 53.3% for patients with non-cancer diseases. Patient-physician discussions about care settings occurred in 36.4%-54.8% of hospital deaths and 67.8%-81.5% of home deaths across diseases. There were small differences in the QOD scores between patients with accurate and inaccurate prognostic awareness across most subgroups. However, participation in EOL discussions was associated with higher QOD scores than non-participation. The largest QOD score difference was observed in patients who died from pneumonia in hospitals, with discussions about care settings (64.0 versus without 42.6) showing a difference of 21.4 (95% confidence interval: 16.3, 26.5).
conclusionsParticipation in EOL discussions was associated with higher family-reported QOD across diseases and places of death in this observational study. Similar patterns were observed among patients who died in hospital settings. These findings suggest that EOL discussions may be related to QOD beyond the final place of death.
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.