ArticlePalliative care and social practice2026
Exploring death literacy with allied health professionals: A cross-sectional survey in Australia.
Article in Palliative care and social practice, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Allied health clinicians need strong death literacy to navigate loss, grief, dying, and death. Their roles include system navigation, advocacy, and psychosocial support, often bridging healthcare, community, and social services. Adequate death literacy is essential for holistic, compassionate care. This study assessed death literacy among allied health clinicians in the Central Coast region of New South Wales, Australia. Methods: An anonymous, cross-sectional online survey conducted between February and March 2025 collected demographic, professional, and 29-item Death Literacy Index-Revised (DLI-R) data. Subsequent analyses compared overall and subscale death literacy scores across Central Coast allied health disciplines and against published Australian norms for the (a) general population, (b) health professionals, and (c) end-of-life and bereavement care volunteers. Results: A total of 144 allied health clinicians completed the survey, including nutrition and dietetics, physiotherapy, podiatry, psychology, occupational therapy, speech pathology, social work, oral health, counselling, allied health assistants, and other disciplines. There were significant differences in the overall death literacy scores across allied health disciplines, with differences in mean scores ranging from 0.280 to 1.238 (p < 0.01). These differences extended to most subscales; however, after adjusting for potentially confounding characteristics, only social work remained significantly different from the "other" group in overall scores. Subscale differences persisted, including higher hands-on care scores in physiotherapy and occupational therapy, and higher factual and community knowledge scores in social work, compared with the "other" group. Overall, allied health clinicians' death literacy (mean = 5.671) was significantly higher than Australian Online Research Panel norms for the general population (mean = 4.830; p < .001); and lower than health professionals (mean = 6.510; p < .001); end of life care volunteers (mean = 6.640; p < .001); and grief and bereavement care volunteers (mean = 6.590; p < .001). Conclusion: Allied health clinicians appear to hold some discipline-specific strengths in death literacy subscales. Although overall death literacy was higher than that of the general population, it remained lower than that of health professionals, end-of-life care volunteers, and volunteers in grief and bereavement. These findings highlight gaps in allied health workers' ability to understand, access, and act on end-of-life care options.
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.