ArticleJAMA network open2026
Perceived Importance of Good Death Components Among Patients With Advanced Cancer and Family Caregivers.
Article in JAMA network open, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Although the concept of a good death is central to palliative care policy and practice, empirical evidence is largely derived from high-income Western or single-country contexts, limiting cross-setting relevance. Objective: To determine the importance of good death components, compare priorities across settings, and examine patient-caregiver differences and setting-by-role interactions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted from March 2023 to February 2025 using the 54-item Good Death Inventory. Adults with stage III or IV cancer and family caregivers were recruited from oncology and palliative care services in Hong Kong, mainland China, Turkey, Greece, and Gaza. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were Good Death Inventory importance scores (including total, core domains, and optional domains). Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach α, and group differences were analyzed using analysis of variance, with partial η2 used to estimate effect size. Results: The final analysis included 1059 participants: 640 patients (60.4%) and 419 family caregivers (39.6%) (mean [SD] age, 50.8 [18.8] years; 547 of 1056 participants with sex data [51.7%] were female). The Good Death Inventory demonstrated excellent internal consistency across settings (Cronbach α = 0.94). Mean total Good Death Inventory scores differed significantly across settings (partial η2 = 0.383; P < .001). Scores were highest in Gaza (mean [SD], 5.93 [0.56]) and Greece (5.88 [0.30]), where participants placed greater emphasis on emotional peace, family harmony, and spiritual acceptance. Scores were lowest in Turkey (mean [SD], 4.71 [0.87]) and Hong Kong (4.93 [0.71]). Patient-caregiver differences were generally small, although minor setting-by-role interactions suggest context-specific variation in priorities. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, patients with advanced cancer and family caregivers across 5 settings shared a broad aspiration for a good death, but priorities varied across settings. Emotional peace, dignity, and family connection were consistently highly valued. These findings suggest that culturally sensitive palliative care models should recognize both shared end-of-life priorities and setting-specific meanings of a good 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.