ArticleBMJ open2026
Implementing remote death certification in Japan: a nationwide cross-sectional study of awareness, barriers and facilitators.
Article in BMJ 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine awareness of remote death certification (RDC), perceptions of guideline requirements, and barriers and facilitators to implementation among physicians and nurses involved in primary and home medical care in Japan, and to explore implications for health systems facing population ageing.
designNationwide cross-sectional web-based survey.
settingPrimary care and home medical care settings in Japan, targeting clinicians across all 47 prefectures.
participantsParticipants were recruited using the official mailing lists of three major national academic societies in Japan related to primary care. Individuals who were not physicians or nurses and those who did not provide consent were excluded. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were awareness of RDC guidelines and perceived barriers related to six predefined guideline requirements. Secondary outcomes included general barriers and facilitators to implementation, as well as differences according to practice location and prior consideration or implementation experience.
resultsOf 526 physicians and nurses included, 81.2% considered RDC necessary but only 1.1% had implemented it, and 58.0% were unaware of the 2024 revised guidelines. The most frequently reported barriers were shortages of nurses trained in information and communication technology (ICT)-based death certification (81.6%) and limited training opportunities (77.9%). Clinicians who had considered or implemented RDC were more likely to perceive guideline requirements as overly strict than those who had not (65.7% vs 42.9%, p<0.001). In remote areas, the availability of ICT infrastructure was more frequently perceived as a barrier (47.9% vs 30.9%, p=0.004). Key facilitators included regional end-of-life care networks (88.6%), improved nurse reimbursement (87.1%) and tools for family consensus-building (86.9%).
conclusionsDespite high perceived need, implementation of RDC remains extremely limited. Key barriers include workforce constraints, insufficient training opportunities and perceived rigidity of guideline requirements. Addressing these barriers through flexible implementation strategies and strengthened system-level support may facilitate the adoption of telemedicine-based end-of-life care in ageing and resource-constrained health systems.
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.