Attitudes of physicians, nurses, and the general public toward End-of-Life (EoL) decisions in European countries: an umbrella review.

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Pietro Refolo, Costanza Raimondi, Salvatore Simone Masilla, Antonina Argo, Emma Capulli, Silvia Ceruti, Silvia Gonella, Francesca Ingravallo, Guido Miccinesi, Mario Picozzi, Pietro Redaelli, Antonio Gioacchino Spagnolo
{"title":"Attitudes of physicians, nurses, and the general public toward End-of-Life (EoL) decisions in European countries: an umbrella review.","authors":"Pietro Refolo, Costanza Raimondi, Salvatore Simone Masilla, Antonina Argo, Emma Capulli, Silvia Ceruti, Silvia Gonella, Francesca Ingravallo, Guido Miccinesi, Mario Picozzi, Pietro Redaelli, Antonio Gioacchino Spagnolo","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01219-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>End-of-life (EoL) decisions represent some of the most ethically complex and emotionally charged aspects of healthcare. Understanding the attitudes of physicians, nurses, and the public toward EoL decisions is crucial for aligning care provided with the personal values and preferences of patients.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore the attitudes of physicians, nurses, and the general public toward EoL decisions, including the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatments, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide (PAS), palliative sedation, and advance care planning (ACP) within European countries.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>An umbrella review was conducted, covering the period from January 2010 to June 2024. The search strategy included Medline, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, supplemented by manual searches of reference lists of all included studies to identify additional relevant studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search identified 587 papers, 11 of which were included in the synthesis. Of these, six addressed euthanasia and PAS, three focused on ACP, one on the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments, and one on palliative sedation. In Europe, the general public expressed the highest level of support for EoL practices such as euthanasia and PAS, followed by nurses, while physicians often held a more cautious perspective. For withdrawal of treatment, palliative sedation, and ACP, a critical recurring theme was the need to improve communication between patients and healthcare professionals.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The divergence underscores the intricate complexity of navigating ethical, cultural, and professional considerations in EoL care. Effective communication serves as a cornerstone for respecting patient autonomy and ensuring that healthcare decisions align with individual values, goals and preferences.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"60"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12063369/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01219-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: End-of-life (EoL) decisions represent some of the most ethically complex and emotionally charged aspects of healthcare. Understanding the attitudes of physicians, nurses, and the public toward EoL decisions is crucial for aligning care provided with the personal values and preferences of patients.

Aim: To explore the attitudes of physicians, nurses, and the general public toward EoL decisions, including the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatments, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide (PAS), palliative sedation, and advance care planning (ACP) within European countries.

Design: An umbrella review was conducted, covering the period from January 2010 to June 2024. The search strategy included Medline, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, supplemented by manual searches of reference lists of all included studies to identify additional relevant studies.

Results: The search identified 587 papers, 11 of which were included in the synthesis. Of these, six addressed euthanasia and PAS, three focused on ACP, one on the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments, and one on palliative sedation. In Europe, the general public expressed the highest level of support for EoL practices such as euthanasia and PAS, followed by nurses, while physicians often held a more cautious perspective. For withdrawal of treatment, palliative sedation, and ACP, a critical recurring theme was the need to improve communication between patients and healthcare professionals.

Conclusions: The divergence underscores the intricate complexity of navigating ethical, cultural, and professional considerations in EoL care. Effective communication serves as a cornerstone for respecting patient autonomy and ensuring that healthcare decisions align with individual values, goals and preferences.

在欧洲国家,医生、护士和公众对生命终结(EoL)决定的态度:一个总括性的回顾。
背景:生命终结(EoL)决定代表了医疗保健中一些最复杂的伦理和情感方面。了解医生、护士和公众对EoL决策的态度对于使所提供的护理符合患者的个人价值观和偏好至关重要。目的:探讨欧洲国家医生、护士和公众对EoL决策的态度,包括停止或停止维持生命治疗、安乐死、医生协助自杀(PAS)、姑息性镇静和预先护理计划(ACP)。设计:从2010年1月到2024年6月进行了一次总体审查。检索策略包括Medline、CINAHL和PsycINFO,并辅以人工检索所有纳入研究的参考文献列表,以确定其他相关研究。结果:共检索到587篇论文,其中11篇被纳入本文。其中,6项涉及安乐死和PAS, 3项关注ACP, 1项关注生命维持治疗的退出,1项关注姑息性镇静。在欧洲,普通公众对安乐死和PAS等EoL实践的支持程度最高,其次是护士,而医生通常持更谨慎的观点。对于停药、姑息性镇静和ACP,一个反复出现的关键主题是需要改善患者和医疗保健专业人员之间的沟通。结论:这种差异强调了在EoL护理中导航伦理、文化和专业考虑的复杂性。有效的沟通是尊重患者自主权和确保医疗保健决策符合个人价值观、目标和偏好的基石。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信