ArticleCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2026
Resuscitation preference conversation typologies: a constructivist grounded theory study.
Article in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDespite considerable effort, concerns over the quality of the outcomes of resuscitation preference conversations continue. In part, the problem relates to inadequate attention to conversation complexity and the development of oversimplified guides. We aimed to develop a more nuanced understanding of the complexity of real-world resuscitation preference conversations that examines the multiple challenges encountered.
methodsWe used Charmazian-constructivist grounded theory to analyze 106 clinical notes from a data set of 366 detail-rich resuscitation preference conversation narratives. Sampling was purposive and focused on maximum variation. Rigor was enhanced through iterative data collection and analysis and constant comparison.
resultsAll conversations could be described as one of five typologies (standard or middle ground, fighter, conflict or conflicted, avoidance or deferral, and wrong conversation) and two modifiers (re-exploration and health care team concerns about preference) that provide insights into the patients' rationale for decision-making. We also identified 28 conversation foci, which appeared necessary to address, when present, to continue with the conversations (e.g., denial or family conflict). Conversations also benefited from the expression of health care team concern with choice, when needed. Addressing what-if and what-next provided additional nuance on how to proceed postresuscitation, especially for challenging conversations.
conclusionsThe strategy of structuring and engaging with various conversation foci and typologies as they arise, and the importance of exploring what-if and what-next are important additions to the literature and existing guides. Our findings add to existing resources in ways that can hopefully be used to improve clinical practice and training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42681403What 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.