The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Decision-making conversations for life-sustaining treatment with seriously ill patients using a Danish version of the US POLST: a qualitative study of patient and physician experiences
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore patients' and physicians' perspectives on a decision-making conversation for life-sustaining treatment, based on the Danish model of the American Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews following a conversation about preferences for life-sustaining treatment. SETTING: Danish hospitals, nursing homes, and general practitioners' clinics. SUBJECTS: Patients and physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative analyses of interview data. FINDINGS: After participating in a conversation about life-sustaining treatment using the Danish POLST form, a total of six patients and five physicians representing different settings and age groups participated in an interview about their experience of the process. Within the main research questions, six subthemes were identified: Timing, relatives are key persons, clarifying treatment preferences, documentation across settings, strengthening patient autonomy, and structure influences conversations. Most patients and physicians found having a conversation about levels of life-sustaining treatment valuable but also complicated due to the different levels of knowledge and attending to individual patient needs and medical necessities. Relatives were considered as key persons to ensure the understanding of the treatment trajectory and the ability to advocate for the patient in case of a medical crisis. The majority of participants found that the conversation strengthened patient autonomy. CONCLUSION: Patients and physicians found having a conversation about levels of life-sustaining treatment valuable, especially for strengthening patient autonomy. Relatives were considered key persons. The timing of the conversation and securing sufficient knowledge for shared decision-making were the main perceived challenges.KEY POINTSConversations about preferences for life-sustaining treatment are important, but not performed systematically.When planning a conversation about preferences for life-sustaining treatment, the timing of the conversation and the inclusion of relatives are key elements.Decision-making conversations can help patients feel in charge and less alone, and make it easier for health professionals to provide goal-concordant care.Using a model like the Danish POLST form may help to initiate, conduct and structure conversations about preferences for life-sustaining treatment.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The conversations themselves were persuasive.
“The conversations themselves, as in previous accounts [14, 45, 46, 52, 53], were persuasive, and clinicians sought to negotiate the conversation to a hopefully rapid and amicable conclusion in line with the medical view.”
From Shared decision-making with older people on TReatment Escalation planning for Acute deterioration in the emergency Medical Setting - Observed (STREAMS-O): an ethnographic study (2025) · cites this paper as [53]
The Findings (‘The most important aspect of the conversation’; page unavailable) describe patients feeling in charge and physicians respecting their autonomy, but do not say the conversations were persuasive. Searches for persuasion and for clinicians negotiating toward a medical view found no passage establishing that characterization. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
Detering, K. M., Hancock, A. D., Reade, M. C., & Silvester, W. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c1345 · Cited by 2,332
Rietjens, J. A. C., Sudore, R. L., Connolly, M., van Delden, J. J., Drickamer, M. A., Droger, M., van der Heide, A., Heyland, D. K., Houttekier, D., Janssen, D. J. A., et al. (2017) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30582-x · Cited by 1,371
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 29
- 10.1183/09031936.00059814 · DOI
- 10.1089/jpm.2016.0485 · DOI
- 10.6004/jnccn.2017.7025 · DOI
- O'Sullivan R, 2015, Can Fam Physician, 61, 353
- 10.1177/1049909112452467 · DOI
- 10.1177/0825859720936012 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12904-019-0448-z · DOI
- 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.2005 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jamda.2018.10.001 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/jgs.13248 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/imj.13626 · DOI
- Kvale S, 2009, InterViews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing
- 10.1093/intqhc/mzr068 · DOI
- 10.1111/jocn.15630 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12877-019-1211-2 · DOI
- 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.180 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1191/0269216304pm944oa · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.2016.8474 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/1049909118760302 · DOI
- 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.3212 · DOI
- 10.1503/cmaj.160775 · DOI
- 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.5179 · DOI
- 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002169 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.pec.2018.09.017 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12913-018-3755-9 · DOI
- 10.12927/hcq.2009.20947 · DOI
- 10.1177/0269216317696420 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.07228.x · DOI
- 10.1097/NJH.0000000000000512 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Warner, B. E., Wells, M., Vindrola-Padros, C., & Brett, S. J. (2025) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-025-06893-7
“The conversations themselves, as in previous accounts [14, 45, 46, 52, 53], were persuasive, and clinicians sought to negotiate the conversation to a hopefully rapid and amicable conclusion in line with the medical view.”
Metadata
- Authors
- Tuesen, L. D., Ågård, A. S., Bülow, H.-H., Fromme, E. K., & Jensen, H. I.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern Denmark (DK)
- Aarhus University (DK)
- Holbæk Sygehus (DK)
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tuesen, Lone Doris
- Venue
- Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2022-01-02
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 57-66
- ISSN
- 0281-3432 (ISSN-L)
- 1502-7724
- PMC
- PMC9090401
- OpenAlex
- W4211012152
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 3.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Novo Nordic (NNF16OC0023610)
- The Development and Research Fund
- Danish Regions and the Health Cartel
- The Region of Southern Denmark (17/15128)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Keywords
- life-sustaining treatment, POLST, advance care planning, seriously ill patients, patient autonomy, family involvement, shared decision-making, goal-concordant care, end-of-life care
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Denmark, Humans, Nursing Homes, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Terminal Care, Advance Care Planning, Patient Preference
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
