The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Determinants in Canadian Health Care Workers of the Decision to Withdraw Life Support From the Critically Ill
Abstract
Objective. —To examine the attitudes of health care workers regarding the withdrawal of life support. Design. —Cross-sectional survey. Participants. —Attending staff, house staff, and intensive care unit (ICU) nurses in 37 Canadian university-affiliated hospitals. Main Outcome Measures. —Health care workers' ratings of the importance of 17 factors considered in the decision to withdraw life support, and their ratings of five levels of care ranging from comfort measures to intensive care in two of 12 different clinical scenarios. Results. —We surveyed 1361 respondents (149 of 167 potentially eligible ICU attending staff, 142 of 173 ICU house staff, and 1070 of 1455 ICU nurses, with response rates of 89%, 82% and 74%, respectively). The most important factors were likelihood of surviving the current episode, likelihood of long-term survival, premorbid cognitive function, and age of the patient. In choosing the level of care for the patient scenarios, the same option was chosen by more than 50% of respondents in only one of 12 scenarios; opposite extremes of care were chosen by more than 10% of the respondents in eight of 12 scenarios. Respondent characteristics affecting choices included the number of years since graduation, the city and province in which they worked, the number of beds in their ICU, and their assessment of the likelihood that they would withdraw life support in comparison with their colleagues (P Conclusions. —While ICU health care workers consistently identify a number of patient factors as important in decisions to withdraw care, there is extreme variability, which may be explained in part by the values of individual health care providers. (JAMA. 1995;273:703-708)
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Connors, A. F., Dawson, N. V., Desbiens, N. A., Fulkerson, W. J., Goldman, L., Knaus, W. A., Lynn, J., Oye, R. K., Bergner, M., Damiano, A., et al. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.274.20.1591 · Cited by 2,764
Bosslet, G. T., Pope, T. M., Rubenfeld, G. D., Lo, B., Truog, R. D., Rushton, C. H., Curtis, J. R., Ford, D. W., Osborne, M., Misak, C., et al. (2015) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.201505-0924st · Cited by 657
Clinical expertise in the era of evidence-based medicine and patient choice
Haynes, R. B. (2002) · Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1136/ebm.7.2.36 · Cited by 586
Withholding and withdrawal of life support in intensive-care units in France: a prospective survey
Ferrand, E., Robert, R., Ingrand, P., & Lemaire, F. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)03564-9 · Cited by 522
Withdrawal of Mechanical Ventilation in Anticipation of Death in the Intensive Care Unit
Cook, D., Rocker, G., Marshall, J., Sjokvist, P., Dodek, P., Griffith, L., Freitag, A., Varon, J., Bradley, C., Levy, M., et al. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa030083 · Cited by 434
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Cook, D. J.
- Venue
- JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1995-03-01
- Volume
- 273
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 703
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2118916467
- Cited by
- 370
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Determinants in Canadian Health Care Workers of the Decision to Withdraw Life Support From the Critically Ill. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1995.03520330033033
- The paper
- Cook, D. J. (1995). Determinants in Canadian Health Care Workers of the Decision to Withdraw Life Support From the Critically Ill. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03520330033033
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.