Dataset Information

When is a person dead? The Canadian public's understanding of death and death determination: a nationwide survey.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

We aimed to describe the Canadian public's understanding and perception of how death is determined in Canada, their level of interest in learning about death and death determination, and their preferred strategies for informing the public.

Methods

We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of the Canadian public. The survey presented two scenarios of a man who met current criteria for neurologic death determination (scenario 1) and a man who met current criteria for circulatory death determination (scenario 2). Survey questions evaluated understanding of how death is determined, acceptance of death determination by neurologic and circulatory criteria, and interest and preferred strategies in learning more about the topic.

Results

Among 2,000 respondents (50.8% women; n = 1,015), nearly 67.2% believed that the man in scenario 1 was dead (n = 1,344) and 81.2% (n = 1,623) believed that the man in scenario 2 was dead. Respondents who believed that the man was not dead or were unsure endorsed several factors that may increase their agreement with the determination of death, including requiring more information about how death was determined, seeing the results of brain imaging/tests, and a third doctor's opinion. Predictors of disbelief that the man in scenario 1 is dead were younger age, being uncomfortable with the topic of death, and subscribing to a religion. Predictors of disbelief that the man in scenario 2 is dead were younger age, residing in Quebec (compared with Ontario), having a high school education, and subscribing to a religion. Most respondents (63.3%) indicated interest in learning more about death and death determination. Most respondents preferred to receive information about death and death determination from their health care professional (50.9%) and written information provided by their health care professional (42.7%).

Conclusion

Among the Canadian public, the understanding of neurologic and circulatory death determination is variable. More uncertainty exists with death determination by neurologic criteria than with circulatory criteria. Nevertheless, there is a high level of general interest in learning more about how death is determined in Canada. These findings provide important opportunities for further public engagement.

SUBMITTER: Sarti AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10202975 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

When is a person dead? The Canadian public's understanding of death and death determination: a nationwide survey.

Sarti Aimee J AJ Honarmand Kimia K Sutherland Stephanie S Hornby Laura L Wilson Lindsay C LC Priestap Fran F Carignan Robert R Joanne Brennan B Brewster Heather H Elliott-Pohl Kennedy K Weiss Matthew M Shemie Sam D SD

Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie 20230401 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>We aimed to describe the Canadian public's understanding and perception of how death is determined in Canada, their level of interest in learning about death and death determination, and their preferred strategies for informing the public.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of the Canadian public. The survey presented two scenarios of a man who met current criteria for neurologic death determination (scenario 1) and a man wh ...[more]

PMID: 37131025

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRandomised trials are considered the gold standard in providing robust evidence on the effectiveness of interventions. However, there are relatively few initiatives to help increase public understanding of what randomised trials are and why they are important. This limits the overall acceptance of and public participation in clinical trials. The People's Trial aims to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims by actively involving them in all aspects of trial design. This was done by involving the public in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial.MethodsUsing a reflexive approach, we describe the processes of development, conduct, and dissemination of The People's Trial.ResultsOver 3000 members of the public, from 72 countries, participated in The People's Trial. Through a series of online surveys, the public designed a trial called The Reading Trial. They chose the question the trial would try to answer and decided the components of the trial question. In December 2019, 991 participants were recruited to a trial to answer the question identified and prioritised by the public, i.e. 'Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep in comparison with not reading a book in bed?' We report the processes of The People's Trial in seven phases, paralleling the steps of a randomised trial, i.e. question identification and prioritisation, recruitment, randomisation, trial conduct, data analysis, and sharing of findings. We describe the decisions we made, the processes we used, the challenges we encountered, and the lessons we learned.ConclusionThe People's Trial involved the public successfully in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial demonstrating the potential for such initiatives to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04185818 . Registered on 4 December 2019.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the sociodemographic characteristics, activities, motivations, experiences, skills and challenges of patient partners working across multiple health system settings in Canada.DesignOnline cross-sectional survey of self-identified patient partners.SettingPatient partners in multiple jurisdictions and health system organisations.Participants603 patient partners who had drawn on their experiences with the health system as a patient, family member or informal caregiver to try to improve it in some way, through their involvement in the activities of a group, organisation or government.ResultsSurvey respondents predominantly identified as female (76.6%), white (84%) and university educated (70.2%) but were a heterogeneous group in the scope (activities and organisations), intensity (number of hours) and longevity (number of years) of their role. Primary motivations for becoming a patient partner were the desire to improve the health system based on either a negative (36.2%) or positive (23.3%) experience. Respondents reported feeling enthusiastic (83.6%), valued (76.9%) and needed (63.3%) always or most of the time; just under half felt they had always or often been adequately compensated in their role. Knowledge of the health system and the organisation they partner with are key skills needed. Two-thirds faced barriers in their role with over half identifying power imbalances. Less than half were able to see how their input was reflected in decisions or changes always or most of the time, and 40.3% had thought about quitting.ConclusionsThis survey is the first of its kind to examine at a population level, the characteristics, experiences and dynamics of a large sample of self-identified patient partners. Patient partners in this sample are a sociodemographically homogenous group, yet heterogeneous in the scope, intensity and longevity of roles. Our findings provide key insights at a critical time, to inform the future of patient partnership in health systems.

Dataset Information

When is a person dead? The Canadian public's understanding of death and death determination: a nationwide survey.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

When is a person dead? The Canadian public's understanding of death and death determination: a nationwide survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets