Institute of Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Germany.
Institute of History, Theory and Ethics in Medicine, RWTH, Aachen, Germany.
J Crit Care. 2018 Dec;48:78-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.08.008. Epub 2018 Aug 16.
To summarize and compare qualitative studies which explored attitudes of patients, families and healthcare providers towards medical futility.
A systematic search of qualitative studies via the PubMed database was conducted. Data were extracted in terms of two aspects: 1) Group of people, which were interviewed about futility; 2) Definitions of medical futility given by these participants. Data were analyzed and synthesized using the method of qualitative content analysis.
The initial search identified 737 articles. 71 studies were reviewed in detail and 10 were finally selected. As a result, three groups of people (physicians, caregiver and patients) and six core categories could be identified: patient treatment, quantitative aspects, resources, professional aspects, reference to balance, definition challenges.
This review describes existing opinions about medical futility and demonstrates the multifaceted understanding of medical futility by physicians, caregivers and patients. The difficulties in defining medical futility demonstrate the need for resources to help healthcare providers and patients to deal with decision-making in such situations.
总结和比较探讨患者、家属和医疗保健提供者对医疗无效性态度的定性研究。
通过 PubMed 数据库系统地检索定性研究。从两个方面提取数据:1)接受无效性访谈的人群;2)这些参与者对医疗无效性的定义。采用定性内容分析法对数据进行分析和综合。
最初的搜索确定了 737 篇文章。详细审查了 71 项研究,最终选择了 10 项研究。结果确定了三组人群(医生、护理人员和患者)和六个核心类别:患者治疗、定量方面、资源、专业方面、平衡参考、定义挑战。
本综述描述了对医疗无效性的现有观点,并展示了医生、护理人员和患者对医疗无效性的多方面理解。医疗无效性定义的困难表明需要资源来帮助医疗保健提供者和患者应对此类情况下的决策。