Responders and non-responders in a study on medical end-of-life decisions in Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland
(2006) In Sozial- und Präventivmedizin 51(1). p.24-33- Abstract
- Objectives: To determine the direction and magnitude of participation bias in end-of-life research. Methods: Within the framework of a European survey on medical end-of-life decisions, a non-response study was conducted among physicians in Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. People were asked about their attitudes and experiences in the area of medial end-of-life decision. The response rates ranged from 12.8% (Netherlands) to 39.4% (Switzerland). The responders (n = 5403) and the non-responders (n = 866) were compared regarding socio-demographic characteristics, experiences with terminal patients and agreement with attitudes towards "end-of-life decisions". The reasons for non-participation to the study were analyzed.... (More)
- Objectives: To determine the direction and magnitude of participation bias in end-of-life research. Methods: Within the framework of a European survey on medical end-of-life decisions, a non-response study was conducted among physicians in Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. People were asked about their attitudes and experiences in the area of medial end-of-life decision. The response rates ranged from 12.8% (Netherlands) to 39.4% (Switzerland). The responders (n = 5403) and the non-responders (n = 866) were compared regarding socio-demographic characteristics, experiences with terminal patients and agreement with attitudes towards "end-of-life decisions". The reasons for non-participation to the study were analyzed. Results: Non-response did not cause socio-demographic distortion, but non-responders had statistically significantly fewer terminal patients than responders. Agreement rates were statistically significantly higher among responders than among non-responders for euthanasia, non-treatment decision and life-preserving statements. Neutral answers were statistically significantly more frequent among non-responders than among responders for life-preserving and euthanasia statements. The most commonly mentioned reason for non-participation was "lack of time". Conclusion: Non-participation does cause an overestimation of proponents of life-shortening, as well as of life-preserving end-of-life decisions. Non-responders more often have ambiguous attitudes towards end-of-life decisions than responders. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/417329
- author
- Fischer, S ; Miccinesi, G ; Hornung, R ; Bosshard, G ; Deliens, L ; van der Heide, A ; Nilstun, Tore LU ; Norup, M and Onwuteaka-Philipsen, BD
- organization
- publishing date
- 2006
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- euthanasia, decisions, end-of-life, non-responder study, physicians, non-treatment
- in
- Sozial- und Präventivmedizin
- volume
- 51
- issue
- 1
- pages
- 24 - 33
- publisher
- Frontiers Media S. A.
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:16898235
- wos:000235374300005
- scopus:31144459349
- ISSN
- 0303-8408
- DOI
- 10.1007/s00038-005-0004-x
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- d00ce875-f038-444b-8b6c-78f119a3f097 (old id 417329)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 15:23:57
- date last changed
- 2022-05-08 03:06:38
@article{d00ce875-f038-444b-8b6c-78f119a3f097, abstract = {{Objectives: To determine the direction and magnitude of participation bias in end-of-life research. Methods: Within the framework of a European survey on medical end-of-life decisions, a non-response study was conducted among physicians in Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. People were asked about their attitudes and experiences in the area of medial end-of-life decision. The response rates ranged from 12.8% (Netherlands) to 39.4% (Switzerland). The responders (n = 5403) and the non-responders (n = 866) were compared regarding socio-demographic characteristics, experiences with terminal patients and agreement with attitudes towards "end-of-life decisions". The reasons for non-participation to the study were analyzed. Results: Non-response did not cause socio-demographic distortion, but non-responders had statistically significantly fewer terminal patients than responders. Agreement rates were statistically significantly higher among responders than among non-responders for euthanasia, non-treatment decision and life-preserving statements. Neutral answers were statistically significantly more frequent among non-responders than among responders for life-preserving and euthanasia statements. The most commonly mentioned reason for non-participation was "lack of time". Conclusion: Non-participation does cause an overestimation of proponents of life-shortening, as well as of life-preserving end-of-life decisions. Non-responders more often have ambiguous attitudes towards end-of-life decisions than responders.}}, author = {{Fischer, S and Miccinesi, G and Hornung, R and Bosshard, G and Deliens, L and van der Heide, A and Nilstun, Tore and Norup, M and Onwuteaka-Philipsen, BD}}, issn = {{0303-8408}}, keywords = {{euthanasia; decisions; end-of-life; non-responder study; physicians; non-treatment}}, language = {{eng}}, number = {{1}}, pages = {{24--33}}, publisher = {{Frontiers Media S. A.}}, series = {{Sozial- und Präventivmedizin}}, title = {{Responders and non-responders in a study on medical end-of-life decisions in Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland}}, url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-005-0004-x}}, doi = {{10.1007/s00038-005-0004-x}}, volume = {{51}}, year = {{2006}}, }