Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBirchley, G
dc.contributor.authorJones, K
dc.contributor.authorHuxtable, R
dc.contributor.authorDixon, J
dc.contributor.authorKitzinger, J
dc.contributor.authorClare, L
dc.date.accessioned2017-06-14T09:30:13Z
dc.date.issued2016-07-27
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: In most Anglophone nations, policy and law increasingly foster an autonomy-based model, raising issues for large numbers of people who fail to fit the paradigm, and indicating problems in translating practical and theoretical understandings of 'good death' to policy. Three exemplar populations are frail older people, people with dementia and people with severe traumatic brain injury. We hypothesise that these groups face some over-lapping challenges in securing good end-of-life care linked to their limited agency. To better understand these challenges, we conducted a scoping review and thematic synthesis. METHODS: To capture a range of literature, we followed established scoping review methods. We then used thematic synthesis to describe the broad themes emerging from this literature. RESULTS: Initial searches generated 22,375 references, and screening yielded 49, highly heterogeneous, studies that met inclusion criteria, encompassing 12 countries and a variety of settings. The thematic synthesis identified three themes: the first concerned the processes of end-of-life decision-making, highlighting the ambiguity of the dominant shared decision-making process, wherein decisions are determined by families or doctors, sometimes explicitly marginalising the antecedent decisions of patients. Despite this marginalisation, however, the patient does play a role both as a social presence and as an active agent, by whose actions the decisions of those with authority are influenced. The second theme examined the tension between predominant notions of a good death as 'natural' and the drive to medicalise death through the lens of the experiences and actions of those faced with the actuality of death. The final theme considered the concept of antecedent end-of-life decision-making (in all its forms), its influence on policy and decision-making, and some caveats that arise from the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Together these three themes indicate a number of directions for future research, which are likely to be applicable to other conditions that result in reduced agency. Above all, this review emphasises the need for new concepts and fresh approaches to end of life decision-making that address the needs of the growing population of frail older people, people with dementia and those with severe traumatic brain injury.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was funded through a GW4 Building Communities Programme (Accelerator Fund) Grant no: GW4- 81-PA.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 17, article 46en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12910-016-0129-x
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/28012
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27461340en_GB
dc.rights© The Author(s). 2016. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.en_GB
dc.subjectDecision-makingen_GB
dc.subjectDementiaen_GB
dc.subjectEnd-of-lifeen_GB
dc.subjectFrailtyen_GB
dc.subjectGood Deathen_GB
dc.subjectMental capacityen_GB
dc.subjectScoping reviewen_GB
dc.subjectThematic synthesisen_GB
dc.subjectTraumatic brain injuryen_GB
dc.titleDying well with reduced agency: a scoping review and thematic synthesis of the decision-making process in dementia, traumatic brain injury and frailtyen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2017-06-14T09:30:13Z
exeter.place-of-publicationEnglanden_GB
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from BioMed Central via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalBMC Medical Ethicsen_GB
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© The Author(s). 2016. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © The Author(s). 2016. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.