Family members’ experiences of assisted dying: A systematic literature review with thematic synthesis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Families’ experiences of assisted dying are under-investigated and families are rarely considered in clinical guidelines concerning assisted dying. Aim: To systematically review family experiences of assisted dying. Design: A systematic literature review using thematic synthesis. Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine) and PsycINFO databases (January 1992 to February 2019). Studies investigating families’ experiences on the practice of legalised assisted dying were included. We excluded studies prior to legalisation within the jurisdiction, secondary data analysis and opinion papers. Results: Nineteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Publications were derived from four countries: The Netherlands, United States (Oregon, Washington and Vermont), Canada and Switzerland. Dutch studies predominately investigated family involvement in euthanasia, while Swiss and American studies only reported on assisted suicide. Eleven studies had a qualitative design, using predominately in-depth interviews; seven were retrospective surveys. Five analytical themes represented families’ experiences in assisted dying: (1) context of the decision, (2) grounding the decision, (3) cognitive and emotional work, (4) experiencing the final farewell and (5) grief and bereavement. The results showed that families can be very involved in supporting patients seeking assisted dying, where open communication is maintained. Family involvement appeared to be influenced by the type of legislation in their country and the families’ perception of the social acceptability of assisted dying. Conclusion: Our data confirm that families across all jurisdictions are involved in assisted suicide decision and enactment. Family needs are under-researched, and clinical guidelines should incorporate recommendations about how to consider family needs and how to provide them with evidence-based tailored interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it