The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Defining a Good Death (Successful Dying): Literature Review and a Call for Research and Public Dialogue
Open accessAbstract
There is little agreement about what constitutes good death or successful dying. The authors conducted a literature search for published, English-language, peer-reviewed reports of qualitative and quantitative studies that provided a definition of a good death. Stakeholders in these articles included patients, prebereaved and bereaved family members, and healthcare providers (HCPs). Definitions found were categorized into core themes and subthemes, and the frequency of each theme was determined by stakeholder (patients, family, HCPs) perspectives. Thirty-six studies met eligibility criteria, with 50% of patient perspective articles including individuals over age 60 years. We identified 11 core themes of good death: preferences for a specific dying process, pain-free status, religiosity/spiritualty, emotional well-being, life completion, treatment preferences, dignity, family, quality of life, relationship with HCP, and other. The top three themes across all stakeholder groups were preferences for dying process (94% of reports), pain-free status (81%), and emotional well-being (64%). However, some discrepancies among the respondent groups were noted in the core themes: Family perspectives included life completion (80%), quality of life (70%), dignity (70%), and presence of family (70%) more frequently than did patient perspectives regarding those items (35%–55% each). In contrast, religiosity/spirituality was reported somewhat more often in patient perspectives (65%) than in family perspectives (50%). Taking into account the limitations of the literature, further research is needed on the impact of divergent perspectives on end-of-life care. Dialogues among the stakeholders for each individual must occur to ensure a good death from the most critical viewpoint—the patient’s.
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
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
FRANKL, V. E. (1946) · Cited by 3,910
Steinhauser, K. E. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.284.19.2476 · Cited by 2,514
In Search of a Good Death: Observations of Patients, Families, and Providers
Steinhauser, K. E., Clipp, E. C., McNeilly, M., Christakis, N. A., McIntyre, L. M., & Tulsky, J. A. (2000) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-132-10-200005160-00011 · Cited by 1,130
Chochinov, H. M., Kristjanson, L. J., Breitbart, W., McClement, S., Hack, T. F., Hassard, T., & Harlos, M. (2011) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(11)70153-x · Cited by 775
Dignity-Conserving Care—A New Model for Palliative Care: Helping the Patient Feel Valued
Chochinov, H. M. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.17.2253 · Cited by 725
Emanuel, E. J., & Emanuel, L. L. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(98)90329-4 · Cited by 613
A Measure of the Quality of Dying and Death
Curtis, J. R., Patrick, D. L., Engelberg, R. A., Norris, K., Asp, C., & Byock, I. (2002) · Journal of Pain and Symptom Management · doi:10.1016/s0885-3924(02)00419-0 · Cited by 442
The institutionalization of the good death
McNamara, B., Waddell, C., & Colvin, M. (1994) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)90002-7 · Cited by 353
Evaluating the Quality of Dying and Death
Patrick, D. L., Engelberg, R. A., & Curtis, J. R. (2001) · Journal of Pain and Symptom Management · doi:10.1016/s0885-3924(01)00333-5 · Cited by 351
Cited by
Therapeutic use of classic psychedelics to treat cancer-related psychiatric distress
Ross, S. (2018) · International Review of Psychiatry · doi:10.1080/09540261.2018.1482261 · Cited by 102
Jansen, J., Schulz-Quach, C., Eisenbeck, N., Carreno, D. F., Schmitz, A., Fountain, R., Franz, M., Schäfer, R., Wong, P. T. P., & Fetz, K. (2019) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-019-0336-6 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Meier, E. A., Gallegos, J. V., Thomas, L. P. M., Depp, C. A., Irwin, S. A., & Jeste, D. V.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-04
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 261-271
- ISSN
- 1064-7481 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2275532222
- Cited by
- 566
- References
- 52
- FWCI
- 33.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Defining a Good Death (Successful Dying): Literature Review and a Call for Research and Public Dialogue. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jagp.2016.01.135
- The paper
- Meier, E. A., Gallegos, J. V., Thomas, L. P. M., Depp, C. A., Irwin, S. A., & Jeste, D. V. (2016). Defining a Good Death (Successful Dying): Literature Review and a Call for Research and Public Dialogue. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2016.01.135
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.