FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2063807903> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2063807903 endingPage "1091" @default.
• W2063807903 startingPage "1089" @default.
• W2063807903 abstract "‘‘Inhisthoughtsandhisattributes,mankindatlargeiscontrolled by inherited beliefs and impulses, whichcountless thousands of years have ingrained likeinstinct.…indays ofillness many millions…stillseektheir gods rather than the physicians.’’Sir William Osler [1].The 19th and 20th centuries saw a scientific revolutionand the establishment of ‘modern medicine.’ The explo-sion in medical knowledge, therapies, and technologies islargely attributable to increased focus on the scientificmethod and empirically demonstrable outcomes. In the21st century many clinicians consider the use of evidence-based medicine synonymous with good clinical care.However, as the report from Bu¨low and colleaguesreminds us [2], the human condition is complex and noteasily reduced to mere empiric decision-making. This isparticularly true in the context of life-altering decisionsabout end-of-life care or value laden concepts such aspatient autonomy, both of which the authors explore [2].Bu¨low et al. build on the original ETHICATT study bySprung and colleagues [3] and add greater granularity tothe complex topic of end-of-life decision-making byexploring differences between doctors, nurses, patients,and families self-reporting they are ‘religious’ as opposedto simply ‘affiliated’ with a religion. One of the mainfindings is that, in general, religious individuals favormore aggressive treatment than religion-affiliated indi-viduals. These self-reported preferences are congruentwith actual treatments received among patients dying inEuropean intensive care units (ICUs) [4]. These obser-vations may be partially attributable to religious doctrineviewing life as having paramount value, a commonly heldview in most religions, yet there is probably greatercomplexity to the picture. For example, Phelps and col-leagues [5] characterized the use of religious-basedcoping among a cohort of U.S. patients with advancedcancer and found that greater use of religious coping wassignificantly associated with increased use of ICU thera-pies prior to death [5]. This was not contingent on aspecific religion per se but upon the use of a faith-basedpsychological coping framework. Our group [6] foundthat more religious ICU patients and families reportedmore optimistic perceptions of outcomes of the criticalillness, including greater confidence in treatment efficacy.Such optimism regarding favorable ICU outcomes mayguide preferences for more aggressive ICU therapies.Finally, being active in a religious community is oftenassociated with social and emotional support during timesof illness [7], which may have influences beyond those ofindividual patients’ and families’ religious values. Thus,the mechanisms by which religion impacts preferences forand receipt of more aggressive ICU care is likely com-plicated and merits further investigation.The importance of religion to many patients and fam-ilies confronted with end-of-life decisions is irrefutable.Depending on the specific respondent population, any-where from 53 to 90 % of patients view religion asimportant in making serious health decisions [8, 9], andBu¨low et al. [2] found that 60 % of ICU patients andfamilies categorize themselves as religious rather thanreligion-affiliated. Other reports highlight the importance" @default.
• W2063807903 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2063807903 creator A5065913667 @default.
• W2063807903 date "2012-04-14" @default.
• W2063807903 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2063807903 title "Religion and end-of-life decisions in critical care: where the word meets deed" @default.
• W2063807903 cites W1979380626 @default.
• W2063807903 cites W1996557276 @default.
• W2063807903 cites W2008886936 @default.
• W2063807903 cites W2020968091 @default.
• W2063807903 cites W2051058031 @default.
• W2063807903 cites W2141406884 @default.
• W2063807903 cites W2146843554 @default.
• W2063807903 cites W2148391814 @default.
• W2063807903 cites W2150838544 @default.
• W2063807903 cites W2152022612 @default.
• W2063807903 cites W2166174531 @default.
• W2063807903 cites W2304731190 @default.
• W2063807903 cites W4239936855 @default.
• W2063807903 doi "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-012-2557-5" @default.
• W2063807903 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22527073" @default.
• W2063807903 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2063807903 type Work @default.
• W2063807903 sameAs 2063807903 @default.
• W2063807903 citedByCount "8" @default.
• W2063807903 countsByYear W20638079032014 @default.
• W2063807903 countsByYear W20638079032017 @default.
• W2063807903 countsByYear W20638079032018 @default.
• W2063807903 countsByYear W20638079032020 @default.
• W2063807903 countsByYear W20638079032023 @default.
• W2063807903 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2063807903 hasAuthorship W2063807903A5065913667 @default.
• W2063807903 hasBestOaLocation W20638079031 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConcept C2779526319 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConcept C2779845782 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConcept C2780879335 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConcept C2991975920 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConcept C2994186709 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConcept C42219234 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConcept C90805587 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConceptScore W2063807903C138885662 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConceptScore W2063807903C159110408 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConceptScore W2063807903C17744445 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConceptScore W2063807903C199539241 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConceptScore W2063807903C2779526319 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConceptScore W2063807903C2779845782 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConceptScore W2063807903C2780879335 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConceptScore W2063807903C2991975920 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConceptScore W2063807903C2994186709 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConceptScore W2063807903C41895202 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConceptScore W2063807903C42219234 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConceptScore W2063807903C71924100 @default.
• W2063807903 hasConceptScore W2063807903C90805587 @default.
• W2063807903 hasIssue "7" @default.
• W2063807903 hasLocation W20638079031 @default.
• W2063807903 hasLocation W20638079032 @default.
• W2063807903 hasOpenAccess W2063807903 @default.
• W2063807903 hasPrimaryLocation W20638079031 @default.
• W2063807903 hasRelatedWork W2021516714 @default.
• W2063807903 hasRelatedWork W2041406749 @default.
• W2063807903 hasRelatedWork W2056792073 @default.
• W2063807903 hasRelatedWork W2063807903 @default.
• W2063807903 hasRelatedWork W2087065760 @default.
• W2063807903 hasRelatedWork W2098595873 @default.
• W2063807903 hasRelatedWork W2162703571 @default.
• W2063807903 hasRelatedWork W2327535022 @default.
• W2063807903 hasRelatedWork W2921092736 @default.
• W2063807903 hasRelatedWork W4367174132 @default.
• W2063807903 hasVolume "38" @default.
• W2063807903 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2063807903 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2063807903 magId "2063807903" @default.
• W2063807903 workType "article" @default.