Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 476

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Families looking back: One year after discussion of withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining support

Abbott, BA, Katherine H., Sago, Joni G., Breen, Catherine M., Abernethy, Amy P., Tulsky, James A.·2001·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify critical psychosocial supports and areas of conflict for families of intensive care unit (ICU) patients during decisions to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Six intensive care units in a tertiary care academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-eight family members, one per case, of patients previously hospitalized in the ICU who had been considered for withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two raters coded transcripts of audiotaped interviews with family members about their experiences in the ICU and the decision-making process for withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment. Codes identified sources of conflict and personal, institutional, and staff supports on which families relied during the decision-making process. Forty-six percent of respondents perceived conflict during their family member's ICU stay; the vast majority of conflicts were between themselves and the medical staff and involved communication or perceived unprofessional behavior (such as disregarding the primary caregiver in treatment discussions). Sixty-three percent of family members previously had spoken with the patient about his or her end-of-life treatment preferences, which helped to lessen the burden of the treatment decision. Forty-eight percent of family members reported the reassuring presence of clergy, and 27% commented on the need for improved physical space to have family discussion and conferences with physicians. Forty-eight percent of family members singled out their attending physician as the preferred source of information and reassurance. CONCLUSIONS: Many families perceived conflict during end-of-life treatment discussions in the ICU. Conflicts centered on communication and behavior of staff. Families identified pastoral care and prior discussion of treatment preferences as sources of psychosocial support during these discussions. Families sought comfort in the identification and contact of a "doctor-in-charge." ICU policies such as family conference rooms and lenient visitation accommodate families during end-of-life decision-making.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00003246-200101000-00040

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 476

Metadata

Authors
Abbott, B., Sago, J. G., Breen, C. M., Abernethy, A. P., & Tulsky, J. A.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2001-01
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
197-201
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1996557276
Cited by
476
References
6
FWCI
22.51
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: Families looking back: One year after discussion of withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining support. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00003246-200101000-00040
The paper
Abbott, B., Sago, J. G., Breen, C. M., Abernethy, A. P., & Tulsky, J. A. (2001). Families looking back: One year after discussion of withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining support. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200101000-00040

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.