Autonomy and control in the wish to die in terminally ill patients: A systematic integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background/Objective Personal autonomy and control are major concepts for people with life-limiting conditions. Patients who express a wish to die (WTD) are often thought of wanting it because of loss of autonomy or control. The research conducted so far has not focused on personal beliefs and perspectives; and little is known about patients’ understanding of autonomy and control in this context. The aim of this review was to analyze what role autonomy and control may play in relation to the WTD expressed by people with life-limiting conditions. Methods A systematic integrative review was conducted. The search strategy used MeSH terms in combination with free-text searching of the EBSCO Discovery Service (which provides access to multiple academic library literature databases, including PubMed and CINAHL), as well as the large PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science library literature databases from their inception until February 2019. The search was updated to January 2021. Results After the screening process, 85 full texts were included for the final analysis. Twenty-seven studies, recording the experiences of 1,824 participants, were identified. The studies were conducted in Australia (n= 5), Canada (n= 5), USA (n= 5), The Netherlands (n= 3), Spain (n= 2), Sweden (n= 2), Switzerland (n= 2), Finland (n= 1), Germany (n= 1), and the UK (n= 1). Three themes were identified: (1) the presence of autonomy for the WTD, (2) the different ways in which autonomy is conceptualized, and (3) the socio-cultural context of research participants. Significance of results Despite the importance given to the concept of autonomy in the WTD discourse, only a few empirical studies have focused on personal interests. Comprehending the context is crucial because personal understandings of autonomy are shaped by socio-cultural–ethical backgrounds and these impact personal WTD attitudes.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".