Skip to main content
Download PDF

A systematic scoping review on patients’ perceptions of dignity

BMC Palliative Care volume 21, Article number: 118 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

A socioculturally appropriate appreciation of dignity is pivotal to the effective provision of care for dying patients. Yet concepts of dignity remain poorly defined. To address this gap in understanding and enhance dignity conserving end-of-life care, a review of current concepts of dignity is proposed.

Methods

To address its primary research question “How do patients conceive the concept of dignity at the end of life?”, this review appraises regnant concepts and influences of dignity, and evaluates current dignity conserving practices. To enhance accountability, transparency and reproducibility, this review employs the Ring Theory of Personhood (RToP) as its theoretical lens to guide a Systematic Evidence Based Approach guided Systematic Scoping Review (SSR in SEBA) of patient perspectives of dignity. Three independent teams of reviewers independently analysed included articles from a structured search of PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane Databases using thematic and content analyses. The themes and categories identified were compared and combined using the Funnelling Process to create domains that guide the discussion that follows.

Results

Seventy-eight thousand five hundred seventy-five abstracts were identified, 645 articles were reviewed, and 127 articles were included. The three domains identified were definitions of dignity, influences upon perceptions of dignity, and dignity conserving care.

Conclusions

This SSR in SEBA affirms the notion that dignity is intimately entwined with self-concepts of personhood and that effective dignity conserving measures at the end of life must be guided by the patient’s concept of dignity. This SSR in SEBA posits that such personalised culturally sensitive, and timely support of patients, their family and loved ones may be possible through the early and longitudinal application of a RToP based tool.

Peer Review reports

Background

Drawn from the Latin terms dignitus (merit) and dignus (worth) the concept of dignity is seen as the embodiment of an individual’s intrinsic and inalienable right to respect, and a measure of self-worth and honour [1,2,3]. Yet, the concept of dignity takes a variety of forms in the professional, legal, philosophical and ethics realm. For some it is inextricably tied to the moral, ethical and legal notions of autonomy [4], and individual rights [5] whilst to others dignity is a construct rooted in regnant sociocultural influences and beliefs [6]. In extoling dignity’s evolving, personalized often context dependent nature Chochinov adds a further dimension to current concepts [7]. Indeed, failure to acknowledge dignity as an evolving sociocultural construct shaped by ‘both social and cultural constructs and the interrelationships between them’ that has exposed differences in Eastern and Western concepts of dignity and raised questions as to the efficacy of generic dignity conserving measures in healthcare [6, 8,9,10].

Need for this review

With dignity conservation a crucial aspect of end of life care, better understanding of the concept of dignity is crucial to the provision of individualised care for patients, their families, and caregivers [11].

Theoretical lens

As a socio-cultural concept influenced by regnant religious beliefs, societal mores, moral and cultural codes, and evolving personal narratives and contextual considerations, the study of current theories of dignity demands a holistic and longitudinal evaluation. Positing that current concepts of dignity are informed by self-concepts of personhood or “what makes you, you”, we adopt Krishna [12] ’s concept of the Ring Theory of Personhood (RToP) to evaluate current ideas on dignity [13,14,15]. Shown to capture individualised notions of identity, self-worth and respect [16,17,18,19,20,21] that are intimately associated with current ideas of dignity the RToP provides a robust and evidence-based lens to appraise current this individualised and changing concept (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The ring theory of personhood

Full size image

The employ of the RToP as a theoretical lens is also based on current characterisation of dignity [22]. Jacobson [23] suggests the existence of human dignity and social dignity. Jacobson [23] posits that human dignity “belongs to every human being simply by virtue of being human” and that it “cannot be created or destroyed”. Social dignity is “generated in the interactions between and amongst individuals, collectives and societies” and confers self-respect and self-worth as well as respect of the individual by the collective and society [24]. Macklin [15] on the other hand suggests that dignity is a function of autonomous action. Ho, Krishna [18], Foo, Zheng [19], Ho, Krishna [20], Chong, Quah [21], Chai, Krishna [14], suggest that dignity and indeed respect for the individual relates to their associations, responsibilities, roles and place within a family unit whilst Ong, Krishna [13], Wei and Krishna [24], Lee, Sim [25], Loh, Tan [26] propose that selfhood, individual dignity, personal rights and respect are tied to wider sociocultural constructs.

Each of these concepts of dignity are captured in the clinically-evidenced RToP’s Innate, Individual, Relational and Societal Rings. Each ring contains specific beliefs, moral values, ethical principles, familial mores, cultural norms, attitudes, thoughts, decisional preferences, roles and responsibilities that create domain-based identities which in turn inform personal concepts of dignity.

Much like Jacobson [23] notion of human dignity, the Innate Ring is anchored in the belief that all humans are deserving of personhood, “irrespective of clinical status, culture, creed, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or appearance” [13,14,15, 22, 23]. The Innate Ring contains gender, name, family identity, religious and cultural, community and nationality based beliefs, moral values, ethical principles, familial mores, cultural norms, attitudes, thoughts, decisional preferences, roles and responsibilities (henceforth beliefs, values and principles).

Much like Macklin’s [25] notion of dignity being a function of autonomous function, the Individual Ring is informed by the individual’s preferences, biases, beliefs, mores, norms, values and principles which in turn inform personal concepts of dignity. Yet the Individual Ring is also informed by psycho-emotional, experiential, perceptual, and contextual considerations; individual preferences and decision-making styles and biases; and prevailing professional, sociocultural, legal, ethical, and personal considerations. The Individual Ring reveals the evolving and context specific nature of concepts of dignity [27].

The Relational Ring consists of all the relationships that the individual considers close and important to them. As current concepts of dignity acknowledge that concepts of identity, dignity and personhood are shaped by the beliefs, values and principles held by people with whom the individual shares personal and important ties with, the Relational Ring is not exclusively informed by family members and considers the influence of friends with whom the individual determines shares important ties with them [28,29,30]. The Societal Ring is the outermost ring and encompasses societal, religious, professional and legal expectations and institutional obligations and legal standards of practice. These facets inform the individual’s clinical responsibilities, academic codes of conduct, institutional roles, societal expectations, professional duties, and legal and ethical codes of conduct. It could be said that the Relational and Societal Rings embody Jacobson [23] ’s notion of social dignity.

With concepts of personhood and dignity being personalised and context-dependent, how they are conceived with respect to issues such as withholding and withdrawing treatment [31], care determinations [13], collusion [14], and end-of-life care [32], requires careful consideration. The RToP offers both a reflexive, longitudinal, holistic and evidence-based approach to capture evolving concepts of dignity [12, 32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. Using the lens of the RToP it is possible to understand how the Individual Ring and its associated concept of Individual Identity balance sometimes competing preferences, biases, beliefs, mores, norms, values and principles, in a variety of psycho-emotional, experiential, perceptual, and contextual considerations; and prevailing professional, sociocultural, legal, ethical, and personal considerations [16, 17, 40,41,42,43,44].

Methods

Krishna’s Systematic Evidence-Based Approach (SEBA) is adopted to guide this systematic scoping review (SSR) (henceforth SSR in SEBA) [40, 45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. The aim of this review is to identify available data, key characteristics and knowledge gaps in current concepts of dignity in the literature. The SSR in SEBA’s constructivist approach [46, 47, 52,53,54,55,56,57] and relativist lens [58,59,60,61,62] acknowledges dignity as a sociocultural construct. It also facilitates systematic extraction, synthesis and summary of actionable and applicable information across a diverse range of study formats and overcomes the absence of a common understanding of dignity.

To provide a balanced review, an expert team comprised of a librarian from the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine (YLLSoM) and local educational experts and clinicians at YLLSoM, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Palliative Care Institute Liverpool, and Duke-NUS Medical School (henceforth the expert team) helped to guide the 6 stages of the SEBA process.

The SEBA process consists of the 1) Systematic Approach, 2) Split Approach, 3) Jigsaw Perspective, 4) Funnelling Process 5) Analysis of data and non-data driven literature, and 6) Discussion Synthesis (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

The SEBA Process

Full size image

Stage 1 of SEBA: Systematic approach

Stage 1 of the SEBA methodology involves a systematic search of key databases to answer the primary and secondary research questions established by the research and expert teams.

  1. i.

    Determining the title and background of the review

    The expert team, stakeholders and the research team determined the goals of the study and confined the study population, context and concept of the systematic scoping review to the perspectives and factors affecting dignity amongst patients. 

  2. ii.

    Identifying the research question

    Guided by the expert team, the research team determined the primary research question to be: “ How do patients conceive the concept of dignity?” The secondary research questions were: What factors affect patient perceptions of dignity?” and “How are prevailing dignity-conserving care practices perceived by patients?” These questions were designed around the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) elements of the inclusion criteria [63]. In keeping with the SEBA methodology, the review was guided by the PRISMA-P 2015 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols) checklist [64]. 

  3. iii.

    Inclusion criteria

    In keeping with the SEBA methodology, a PICOs (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, study design) format was adopted to guide the research process (Table 1). Here there is was no comparison group.

  4. iv.

    Searching

    Seven members of the research team carried out independent searches of five bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, Scopus). To facilitate this approach, the search process saw three experienced senior researchers well versed in carrying out systematic reviews and systematic scoping reviews each meet with a team of 2–3 medical students to guide them database searches. This approach was to enhance training of new researchers and to ensure that at least two teams were independently reviewing each database. Each team met regularly and discussed their findings. After a search of the first 100 articles in a particular database, the medical students and the senior researcher compared their findings at an online meeting. Subsequently the teams met at specific time points, often after reviewing a predetermined number of included articles to discuss their concerns, exchange opinions and advance their understanding of the research process and the area of study. Interrater reliability was not evaluated.

    In keeping with Pham, Rajic [65] ’s recommendations on sustaining the research process and accommodating to existing manpower and time constraints, the research team restricted the searches to articles published between 1st January 2000 and 31st December 2020. Quantitative, mixed and qualitative research methodologies meeting the inclusion criteria were included. 

  5. v.

    Extracting and Charting

Table 1 PICOs, Inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria applied to database search
Full size table

Working in teams of three medical students and a senior reviewer, the teams reviewed the abstracts and titles and discussed their findings at regular meetings. The findings of the three teams were then discussed at online meetings where Sandelowski and Barroso [66] ’s ‘negotiated consensual validation’ was used to achieve consensus on the final list of titles to be reviewed. The three research teams repeated this process, independently studying all the full text articles on the final list of titles, creating their own lists of articles to be included and discussing their findings online at research meetings. Consensus was achieved on the final list of articles to be analysed.

Stage 2 of SEBA: Split approach

Krishna’s ‘Split Approach’ [65,66,67,68,69,70] was employed to enhance the reliability of the data analyses. This saw three groups of researchers independently analysing the included articles.

The first team summarised and tabulated the included full-text articles in keeping with recommendations drawn from Wong, Greenhalgh [71] ’s RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews and Popay, Roberts [58] ’s “Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews”. The tabulated summaries served to ensure that key aspects of included articles were not lost (Supplementary File 1).

Concurrently, the second team analysed the included articles using Braun and Clarke [72] ’s approach to thematic analysis. In phase 1, the research team carried out independent reviews, ‘actively’ reading the included articles to find meaning and patterns in the data. In phase 2, ‘codes’ were constructed from the ‘surface’ meaning and collated into a code book to code and analyse the rest of the articles using an iterative step-by-step process. As new codes emerged, these were associated with previous codes and concepts. In phase 3, the categories were organised into themes that best depict the data. An inductive approach allowed themes to be “defined from the raw data without any predetermined classification” [73]. In phase 4, the themes were refined to best represent the whole data set and discussed. In phase 5, the research team discussed the results of their independent analysis online and at reviewer meetings. ‘Negotiated consensual validation’ was used to determine a final list of themes approach and ensure the final themes.

A third team of researchers employed Hsieh and Shannon [74] ’s approach to directed content analysis [74] to analyse the included articles. Analysis using the directed content analysis approach involved “identifying and operationalizing a priori coding categories”. The first stage saw the research team draw categories from Chochinov [75] ’s “Dignity-Conserving Care – A New Model for Palliative Care” to guide the coding of the articles. Any data not captured by these codes were assigned a new code.

Stage 3 of SEBA: Jigsaw perspective

In keeping with SEBA’s reiterative process, the themes and categories were reviewed by the expert and research teams. Overlaps between the categories and themes were viewed as pieces of a jigsaw puzzle with the intention of combining overlapping/complementary pieces to create a bigger piece of the puzzle referred to as themes/categories. To create themes/categories the Jigsaw Perspective adopted Phases 4 to 6 of France, Uny [76] ’s adaptation of Noblit, Hare [77] ’s seven phases of meta-ethnography. As per Phase 4, the themes and the categories identified in the Split Approach are grouped together according to their focus. These groupings of categories and themes were then contextualized through the review of the articles from which they were drawn from. Reciprocal translation was used to determine if the themes and categories can be used interchangeably. This allows the themes and categories to be combined to form themes/categories.

Stage 4 of SEBA: Funnelling process

The Funnelling Process employs Phases 3 to 5. To begin, the themes/categories identified in the Jigsaw Approach are juxtaposed with key messages identified in the tabulated summaries to create domains. The process sees the goals, approaches and assessment themes combined within the categories of patient care and procedural skills, interpersonal communication skills, professionalism, knowledge and enablers and barriers. These domains form the basis for ‘the line of argument’ in Stage 6 of SEBA.

Results

78,575 abstracts were identified from the five databases, 645 articles were reviewed, and 127 articles were included (Fig. 3). The three domains identified were: definitions of dignity, factors affecting perceptions of dignity, and dignity-conserving care.

Fig. 3
figure 3

PRISMA Flowchart

Full size image

Domain 1: Definitions of dignity

Forty-six articles proposed patient definitions of dignity. These characterisations and definitions were analysed through lens of the RToP. Subdomains one to four highlight their focus.

Subdomain 1: The innate ring

Patients believe that being treated “as a person” is an intrinsic and inalienable right of any human being [78,79,80,81,82] by virtue of their ‘spiritual connections’ or as a result of their human appearance [82,83,84,85,86].

Subdomain 2: The individual ring

Dignity is also characterised by respect of a patient’s individuality [6, 78, 82, 83, 87,88,89,90,91,92,93] and independence [78, 80, 83, 84, 86, 87, 89, 91, 93,94,95,96]. Respect for independence and individuality is evinced in the treatment of symptoms and efforts to preserve a patient’s ability for self-determination [79, 82, 85, 94, 97,98,99,100].

Subdomain 3: The relational ring

Preservation of familial ties [80, 87, 92, 95] and roles [87] is a key aspect of dignity [84, 87, 90, 92, 95, 101]. Care and support from family members enhanced a patient’s dignity [91,92,93, 102] whilst being a burden to the family diminished it [87, 89, 91, 93, 95].

Subdomain 4: The societal ring

The provision of individualised, timely and appropriate communication and support by healthcare professionals (HCP)s was important to maintaining dignity [6, 10, 78, 89, 91, 92, 95, 102].

Domain 2: Factors affecting patients’ perceptions of dignity

Current influences upon patient’s concepts of dignity may be similarly viewed through the RToP which help focus support.

Subdomain 1: The innate ring

The patient’s sense of self, body image and spirituality impacts their sense of dignity. Thus age-appropriate care [7, 84, 103,104,105] that also respects the patient’s physical characteristics [83,84,85, 106,107,108,109,110,111], culture [75, 78, 82, 92, 94] and beliefs [95, 112, 113] is essential to maintaining the patient’s self-image [7, 82, 84, 104, 108, 114,115,116,117,118] and well-being [75, 81, 83, 84, 89, 95, 98, 100, 110, 112, 119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128]. Failure to respect this holistic concept replete with physical, cultural, age, gender, spiritual and social narrative [95, 112, 113] may result in a negative body image [7, 82, 84, 104, 108, 114,115,116,117,118], a loss of self [6, 7, 87, 91, 102, 104, 118, 129,130,131,132,133,134,135] and a loss of will to live [136].

Sustaining a patient’s holistic concept of self [7, 82, 84, 104, 108, 114,115,116,117,118] is especially pertinent when treating oedema and cachexia, and in the management of surgical scarring, drains or other attached medical equipment [75, 81, 83, 84, 89, 95, 98, 100, 110, 112, 119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128]. Such an approach helps patient’s make sense of their illness and the dying process [81, 95, 98, 120,121,122, 125], attenuates existential distress [121, 122, 137] and diminishes the effects of a loss of dignity [7, 75, 108, 120, 138, 139].

Subdomain 2: The individual ring

Dignity is conserved by sustaining their cognitive abilities [7, 83, 90,91,92, 96, 97, 102,103,104,105, 108, 118, 124, 132, 137, 139,140,141,142,143], autonomous function [6, 78, 79, 83, 88, 89, 92, 93, 96,97,98,99, 102, 103, 107, 108, 110, 111, 114, 122, 124, 138, 144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151] and independence in personal care [78, 80, 83, 84, 86, 87, 89, 91, 93,94,95,96, 105, 108, 111, 113, 116, 124, 127, 128, 139, 140, 143, 147, 150, 152, 153] and activities of daily living [83, 84, 87, 108, 111, 113, 116, 128, 139, 140, 147, 152]. This facilitates a patient’s ability to maintain control over their finances, personal affairs, care determinations including their place of care and death [79, 90, 98, 107, 110, 116, 121, 138, 144, 145, 148, 149, 154], privacy [75, 82, 83, 87, 89, 92, 93, 110, 111, 121, 140, 143, 150], individuality, and legacy are key determinants of self-concepts of dignity [7, 83, 90,91,92, 96,97,98, 102,103,104,105, 108, 118, 124, 129, 131, 132, 137, 139,140,141,142,143, 155].

Conversely uncertainty [7, 140, 143], changing disease trajectories and prognosis [78, 88, 93, 105, 108, 120, 147, 156, 157], functional deterioration [6, 7, 83, 84, 87, 88, 93, 95,96,97, 102, 104, 108, 109, 115,116,117,118, 128, 129, 132, 140, 147, 158,159,160,161] and a loss of control over their financial affairs [95, 111, 121] impairs the patient’s ability to determine their desired place of care and death [116] and predisposes them to a sense of ‘unfinished business’ [7, 98, 118, 131] and an erosion of dignity [6, 78, 82, 83, 87,88,89,90,91,92,93, 108, 110, 112, 121, 146,147,148, 152, 153, 162] and “selfhood” [6, 78, 93, 105, 140, 147]. Poor pain control [87, 90, 111, 127, 147, 152, 163, 164], physical [78, 83, 89, 94, 108, 111, 112, 127, 128, 147, 150,151,152, 165], and psychoemotional support [75, 78, 79, 83, 87, 89, 94, 108, 110, 111, 114, 120, 147, 150, 152, 162] have similar detrimental effects on the patient’s dignity [6, 7, 82,83,84, 87, 88, 90, 93, 95,96,97, 102, 104, 108, 109, 115,116,117,118, 128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135, 137, 140, 143, 147, 158,159,160,161, 166] and may manifest as fear [75, 79, 83, 108, 147], loneliness [102], emotional lability [112, 118, 129, 167], poor acceptance of their clinical state [88, 98, 105, 120], a loss of hope [78, 108, 147, 156, 157], self-esteem [6, 10, 88, 89, 93, 101, 110, 123] and purpose [78, 87, 105, 108, 118, 127, 129, 130, 148] as well as psychological distress [78, 87, 102, 105, 108, 118, 127, 129, 130, 148, 168, 169].

Subdomain 3: The relational ring

The Relational Ring is influenced by reliance on family [90, 95, 101, 115, 116, 137, 147], their willingness to support the patient’s needs [90, 95, 101, 115, 116, 137, 147], the patient’s sense of connectedness [91,92,93, 102, 111, 113, 116, 121, 122, 124] and the quality of their relationships [82, 87, 115, 124, 131, 133, 139]. At the heart of these considerations are patients’ desire to be perceived in a positive light [87, 90, 102, 130, 146, 154] and to maintain their role and status within the family [90, 92, 114, 122, 124, 152]. Feelings of being a burden [87, 89, 91, 93, 95, 108, 154], conflict [121, 124, 125], isolation [111, 113, 124] are especially deleterious to dignity [7, 84, 95, 170]. Table 2 reveals other considerations in the Relational Ring.

Table 2 Factors affecting patients’ perceptions of dignity and loss of dignity
Full size table

Subdomain 4: The societal ring

Societal concepts of dignity feature geographical nuances in current concepts of dignity and reflect the influence of regnant ‘belief systems, experiences, and culture’ on these concepts [6] (Table 3). This especially evident in the differences in the role of relational ties and influences on autonomy in Western and Asian data [6, 10]. Data from China and Japan suggests the influence of relational autonomy, which prioritises familial interests, over individual interests within concepts of personhood and dignity [13, 16, 45].

Table 3 Definitions of dignity
Full size table

Table 3 also reiterates the notion that factors affecting patients’ perceptions of dignity are multi-faceted [182], and often impact all four rings of the RToP.

Domain 3: Dignity conserving care

Dignity conserving care tends to be holistic and involves many if not all of the rings of the RToP. These are summarised in Table 4 for ease of review. The efficacy of these interventions rely on awareness of cultural sensitivities [85, 161], multidisciplinary team support [168, 183], effective communication [82, 96, 97] and appropriate infrastructure [93, 184]. Most of these interventions have a positive impact though five articles reported some of the negative outcomes.

Table 4 Dignity conserving practices
Full size table

Stage 5 of SEBA: Analysis of data and non-data driven literature

Most of the articles included were data driven (87 out of 127), while the remaining articles were non-data-based articles (grey literature, opinion, perspectives, editorial, letters). The expert team and stakeholders raised concerns that data from grey literature, which was neither quality-assessed nor necessarily evidence-based could be a source of bias during the crafting of the discussion. As a result of these concerns, the research team thematically analysed data from grey literature and non-research-based pieces such as letters, opinion and perspective pieces, commentaries and editorials included in this review. The themes identified were compared against themes drawn from peer reviewed evidenced based data. This analysis revealed no differences in the themes from the two sources of data.

In addition, the research team employed the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) [205] and the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) [206] to evaluate the quality of qualitative and quantitative studies included in this review (Supplementary File 1).

Stage 6 of SEBA: Synthesis of the discussion

The discussion of this paper is framed around the domains identified in Stage 4 and is guided by the Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) Collaboration guide [207] and the STORIES (Structured approach to the Reporting In healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis) statement [208].

Discussion

In answering its primary and secondary research questions, this SSR in SEBA reveals that current patient defined concepts of dignity are intrinsically rooted within self-concepts of personhood and identity. Here there are core aspects to this sociocultural construct with concepts of dignity across different settings acknowledging that dignity be framed as the right to be treated as autonomous individual deserving of respect and care in a manner that is in keeping with their beliefs, values, self-concepts and changing needs simply by virtue of their status as a human being and irrespective of their circumstances [80, 99]. It is upon this platform that Chochinov, Krisjanson [7] ’s concept of dignity as “individualistic, transient, and often tied to personal goals and social circumstances”, and Street and Kissane [6] ’s notion of dignity as “relational and embodied ideas”, are built upon. [174] ’s concept of dignity as a function of “inherent” and “imputed” facets captures this notion. Robinson, Phipps [174], define “inherent dignity” as being intrinsic to all humans and suggest that this concept is individualized by “imputed dignity” where an individual refines and builds upon this notion using their narratives, values, beliefs and principles. The RToP provides a means of elucidating and contending with this nuanced perspective.

Echoing current concepts of dignity the RToP underscores the notion that a patient’s concept of dignity is both individual and evolving, changing over time and circumstances, and shaped by individual experiences, sociocultural circumstances, disease trajectory, setting, needs, and concepts of personhood and dignity [152, 209, 210]. However more significantly the RToP lens allows HCPs to determine which of the Innate, Individual, Relational and Societal rings dominate thinking and what elements within them need particular attention at a particular moment and context. Here the complexity of these evolving concepts underlines the need for a personalized, holistic, and longitudinal approach that is best met by a well-trained, responsive multidisciplinary team. A multidisciplinary team will also be better able to support patients, their caregivers, and their loved ones longitudinally and in a timely and holistic manner that is in a manner that is consistent with their sociocultural identities, spiritual needs, and self-concepts of their personhood [7, 88, 95, 97, 102, 103, 154].

Perhaps just as significantly a multidisciplinary team would also be better able to provide timely and regular appraisal, support and and follow-up of patients and their families throughout their illness journey [7, 88, 95, 97, 102, 103, 154]. Here the RToP may be employed as a tool to assess a patient’s concepts of dignity in different circumstances and at different timepoints along their disease trajectory. Mapping these changes over time would be especially useful at the end of life care when responsive, accessible, empathetic and personalised communications and personalised support is especially critical.

It is here in considering the design, study and longitudinal use of an adapted RToP based tool that the role of the host organisation becomes clear. It is the host organisation that must ensure an effective infrastructure that trains and supports the multidisciplinary team, an accessible and robust communication pathway and the support needed to evaluate and address the patient’s needs and goals.

Limitations

One of the main limitations of this study was its inability to differentiate personalised concepts of dignity amongst a wide array of patients replete with their particular circumstances, sociocultural and healthcare settings. This is further limited by confining our review to publications in English or had English translations. Of the 127 included articles, most were from the West and especially the United Kingdom, United States of America, and Canada. This could skew our data collected on patients’ perceptions towards Western-centric ideals, underrepresenting perceptions more commonly seen in other areas of the world.

Moreover, whilst this study was intended to analyse the wide range of current literature on concepts of dignity, our review was limited by a lack of clear reporting of current dignity preserving measures nor of due consideration of resource limitations in a wide array of practices.

We also acknowledge that whilst taking into account the limited resources and availability of the research and experts teams in this review limiting the scope of this SSR in SEBA to the specified dates to increase the chances of completing the review, could have seen important articles excluded.

Conclusions

This SSR in SEBA reiterates the posit that there are common elements to prevailing concepts of dignity and that a patient’s individualised concept of dignity is a refinement of this concept. In doing so this review underscores the need for a tool and a multidsicplinary approach to dignity conserving care especially at the end of life. As we look forward to continuing our engagement with this this critical aspect of clinical care, we look forward to further insights into this topic that can guide design and pilot a RToP-based as a tool to help HCPs understand their patient’s needs and attend to them in a timely, personalised, and appropriate manner.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this review are included in this published article and its supplementary files.

References

  1. Bolton S. ‘Dimensions of Dignity at Work’2007.

  2. McCrudden C. Human dignity. Elgar Encyclopedia of Human Rights: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hodgkiss P. Social Thought and Rival Claims to the Moral Ideal of Dignity: Anthem Press; 2018.

  4. Pullman D. Human Dignity, Narrative Integrity, and Ethical Decision Making at the End of Life. J Palliat Care. 2004;20(3):133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jacelon C, Connelly T, Brown R, Proulx K, Vo T. A concept analysis of dignity for older adults. J Adv Nurs. 2004;48(1):76–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Street AF, Kissane DW. Constructions of dignity in end-of-life care. J Palliat Care. 2001;17(2):93–101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chochinov HM, Krisjanson LJ, Hack TF, Hassard T, McClement S, Harlos M. Dignity in the Terminally Ill: Revisited. J Palliat Med. 2006;9(3):666–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Deshpande AD, Thompson VLS, Vaughn KP, Kreuter MW. The use of sociocultural constructs in cancer screening research among African Americans. Cancer Control. 2009;16(3):256–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Horn R, Kerasidou A. The concept of dignity and its use in end-of-life debates in England and France. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2016;25(3):404–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Leget C. Analyzing dignity: A perspective from the ethics of care. Med Health Care Philos. 2013;16(4):945–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Krishna LK, Alsuwaigh R, Miti PT, Wei SS, Ling KH, Manoharan D. The influence of the family in conceptions of personhood in the palliative care setting in Singapore and its influence upon decision making. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2014;31(6):645–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Krishna LK. Personhood within the context of sedation at the end of life in Singapore. BMJ Case Rep. 2013;2013.

  13. Ong EK, Krishna LK, Neo PSH. The sociocultural and ethical issues behind the decision for artificial hydration in a young palliative patient with recurrent intestinal obstruction Ethics & Medicine. An International Journal of Bioethics. 2015;31:39.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chai HZ, Krishna LK, Wong VH. Feeding: what it means to patients and caregivers and how these views influence Singaporean Chinese caregivers’ decisions to continue feeding at the end of life. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2014;31(2):166–71.

  15. Macklin R. Dignity is a useless concept. British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2003. p. 1419–20.

  16. Chiam M, Ho CY, Quah E, Chua KZY, Ng CWH, Lim EG, et al. Changing self-concept in the time of COVID-19: a close look at physician reflections on social media. Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2022;17(1):1–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhou JX, Goh C, Chiam M, Krishna LKR. Painting and Poetry From a Bereaved Family and the Caring Physician. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. 2022.

  18. Ho ZJM, Krishna LKR, Yee CPA. Chinese familial tradition and Western influence: a case study in Singapore on decision making at the end of life. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010;40(6):932–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Foo WT, Zheng Y, Kwee AK, Yang GM, Krishna L. Factors considered in end-of-life care decision making by health care professionals. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®. 2013;30(4):354–8.

  20. Ho ZJM, Krishna LKR, Goh C, Yee CPA. The physician–patient relationship in treatment decision making at the end of life: A pilot study of cancer patients in a Southeast Asian society. Palliat Support Care. 2013;11(1):13–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chong JA, Quah YL, Yang GM, Menon S, Krishna LKR. Patient and family involvement in decision making for management of cancer patients at a centre in Singapore. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2015;5(4):420–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Radha Krishna LK, Alsuwaigh R. Understanding the fluid nature of personhood - the ring theory of personhood. Bioethics. 2015;29(3):171–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jacobson N. A taxonomy of dignity: a grounded theory study. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2009;9(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wei SS, Krishna LKR. RESPECTING THE WISHES OF INCAPACITATED PATIENTS AT THE END OF LIFE. Ethics & Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics. 2016;32(1).

  25. Lee RJY, Sim DSW, Tay K, Menon S, Kanesvaran R, Krishna L. Perceptions of quality-of-life advocates in a Southeast Asian Society. Diversity and Equality in Health and Care. 2017;14(2):69–75.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Loh AZH, Tan JSY, Jinxuan T, Lyn TY, Krishna LKR, Goh CR. Place of care at end of life: what factors are associated with patients’ and their family members’ preferences? American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®. 2016;33(7):669–77.

  27. Radha Krishna LK, Murugam V, Quah DSC. The practice of terminal discharge: Is it euthanasia by stealth? Nurs Ethics. 2018;25(8):1030–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Krishna LKR, Watkinson DS, Beng NL. Limits to relational autonomy—the Singaporean experience. Nurs Ethics. 2015;22(3):331–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Krishna L, Shirlynn H. Reapplying the" Argument of Preferable Alternative" within the Context of Physician-Assisted Suicide and Palliative Sedation. Asian Bioethics Review. 2015;7(1):62–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Krishna LKR, Menon S, Kanesvaran R. Applying the welfare model to at-own-risk discharges. Nurs Ethics. 2017;24(5):525–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Krishna L. Palliative care imperative: A framework for holistic and inclusive palliative care. Ethics and Medicine. 2013;29:41–61.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Krishna L, Tay J, Watkinson D, Yee A. Advancing a Welfare-Based Model in Medical Decision. Asian Bioethics Review. 2015;7:306–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ying PT, Krishna LK, Peng AYC. A Palliative Care Model for the Elucidation of Intention within the Multi-Disciplinary Team (MEI). Asian Bioethics Review. 2015;7(4):359–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ho S, Krishna LK. Artificial hydration at the end of life–treating the patient, family or physician. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2016;44(12):558–60.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Krishna LK. Decision-making at the end of life: A Singaporean perspective. Asian Bioethics Review. 2011;3(2):118–26.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Krishna L. Nasogastric feeding at the end of life: A virtue ethics approach. Nurs Ethics. 2011;18(4):485–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Krishna LKR. The position of the family of palliative care patients within the decision-making process at the end of life in Singapore. Ethics & Medicine. 2011;27(3):183.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Krishna L, Chin J. Palliative sedation within the duty of palliative care within the Singaporean clinical context. Asian Bioethics Review. 2011;3(3):207–15.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Krishna LR. Best interests determination within the Singapore context. Nurs Ethics. 2012;19(6):787–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kuek JTY, Ngiam LXL, Kamal NHA, Chia JL, Chan NPX, Abdurrahman ABHM, et al. The impact of caring for dying patients in intensive care units on a physician’s personhood: a systematic scoping review. 2020;15(1):1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ho CY, Kow CS, Chia CHJ, Low JY, Lai YHM, Lauw S-K, et al. The impact of death and dying on the personhood of medical students: a systematic scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Huang H, Toh RQE, Chiang CLL, Thenpandiyan AA, Vig PS, Lee RWL, et al. Impact of Dying Neonates on Doctors' and Nurses' Personhood: A Systematic Scoping Review. Journal of pain and symptom management. 2021.

  43. Vig PS, Lim JY, Lee RWL, Huang H, Tan XH, Lim WQ, et al. Parental bereavement–impact of death of neonates and children under 12 years on personhood of parents: a systematic scoping review. BMC Palliat Care. 2021;20(1):1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Chan NPX, Chia JL, Ho CY, Ngiam LXL, Kuek JTY, Ahmad Kamal NHB, et al. Extending the Ring Theory of Personhood to the Care of Dying Patients in Intensive Care Units. Asian bioethics review. 2022;14(1):71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kow CS, Teo YH, Teo YN, Chua KZY, Quah ELY, Kamal NHBA, et al. A systematic scoping review of ethical issues in mentoring in medical schools. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ngiam LXL, Ong YT, Ng JX, Kuek JTY, Chia JL, Chan NPX, et al. Impact of Caring for Terminally Ill Children on Physicians: A Systematic Scoping Review. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2020:1049909120950301.

  47. Krishna LKR, Tan LHE, Ong YT, Tay KT, Hee JM, Chiam M, et al. Enhancing Mentoring in Palliative Care: An Evidence Based Mentoring Framework. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020;7:2382120520957649.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Bok C, Ng CH, Koh JWH, Ong ZH, Ghazali HZB, Tan LHE, et al. Interprofessional communication (IPC) for medical students: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):372.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Chia EWY, Huang H, Goh S, Peries MT, Lee CCY, Tan LHE, et al. A Systematic Scoping Review of Teaching and Evaluating Communications in The Intensive Care Unit. The Asia-Pacific Scholar. In Press.

  50. Hong DZ, Lim AJS, Tan R, Ong YT, Pisupati A, Chong EJX, et al. A Systematic Scoping Review on Portfolios of Medical Educators. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2021;8:23821205211000356.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Goh S, Wong RSM, Quah ELY, Chua KZY, Lim WQ, Ng ADR, et al. Mentoring in palliative medicine in the time of covid-19: a systematic scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ng YX, Koh ZYK, Yap HW, Tay KT, Tan XH, Ong YT, et al. Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(5): e0232511.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Bousquet J, Schunemann HJ, Samolinski B, Demoly P, Baena-Cagnani CE, Bachert C, et al. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA): achievements in 10 years and future needs. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130(5):1049–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Bok C, Ng CH, Koh JWH, Ong ZH, Ghazali HZB, Tan LHE, et al. Interprofessional communication (IPC) for medical students: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):372.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Nur Haidah Ahmad Kamal LHET, Ruth Si Man Wong, Ryan Rui Song Ong, Ryan, Ern Wei Seow EKYL, Zheng Hui Mah, Min Chiam, Annelissa Mien Chew Chin, Jamie Xuelian Zhou, Gillian Li Gek Phua, Eng Koon Ong, Jin Wei Kwekc, Kiley Wei-Jen Loh and, Krishna LKR. Enhancing education in Palliative Medicine: the role of Systematic Scoping Reviews. Palliative Medicine & Care: Open Access. 2020;7(1):1–11.

  56. Ryan Rui Song Ong REWS, Ruth Si Man Wong. A Systematic Scoping Review of Narrative Reviews in Palliative Medicine Education. Palliative Medicine & Care: Open Access. 2020;7(1):1–22.

  57. Zheng Hui Mah RSMW, Ryan Ern Wei Seow Eleanor Kei Ying Loh, Nur Haidah, Ahmad Kamal RRSO, Lorraine Hui En Tan, Min Chiam, Annelissa Mien Chew Chin,, Jamie Xuelian Zhou GLGP, Yoke-Lim Soong, Jin Wei Kwek, and Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna. A Systematic Scoping Review of Systematic Reviews in Palliative Medicine Education. Palliative Medicine & Care: Open Access. 2020;7(1):1–12.

  58. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme Version. 2006;1: b92.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Pring R. The ‘False Dualism’ of Educational Research. J Philos Educ. 2000;34(2):247–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Crotty M. The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process: Sage; 1998 Oct 15.

  61. Ford DW, Downey L, Engelberg R, Back AL, Curtis JR. Discussing religion and spirituality is an advanced communication skill: an exploratory structural equation model of physician trainee self-ratings. J Palliat Med. 2012;15(1):63–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Schick-Makaroff K, MacDonald M, Plummer M, Burgess J, Neander W. What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis. AIMS public health. 2016;3(1):172.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Khalil H, Parker D. The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual 2015: methodology for JBI scoping reviews. 2015.

  64. Osama T, Brindley D, Majeed A, Murray KA, Shah H, Toumazos M, et al. Teaching the relationship between health and climate change: a systematic scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2018;8(5): e020330.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Pham MT, Rajic A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research synthesis methods. 2014;5(4):371–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research: Springer Publishing Company; 2006.

  67. Wen Jie Chua CWSC, Fion Qian Hui Lee, Eugene Yong Hian Koh, Ying Pin Toh, Stephen Mason, Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna. Structuring Mentoring in Medicine and Surgery. A Systematic Scoping Review of Mentoring Programs Between 2000 and 2019. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. 2020;40(3):158–68.

  68. Yong Xiang Ng ZYKK, Hong Wei Yap, Kuang Teck Tay, Xiu Hui Tan, Yun Ting Ong, Lorraine Hui En Tan, Annelissa Mien Chew Chin, Ying Pin Toh, Sushma Shivananda, Scott Compton, Stephen Mason, Ravindran Kanesvaran, Lalit Krishna. Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019. . PLOS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0232511.

  69. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. A systematic review of qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(1):72–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews. BMC Med. 2013;11(1):20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Cassol H, Pétré B, Degrange S, Martial C, Charland-Verville V, Lallier F, et al. Qualitative thematic analysis of the phenomenology of near-death experiences. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(2): e0193001.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Chochinov HM. Dignity-conserving care: A new model for pallative care: Helping the patient feel valued. JAMA. 2002;287(17):2253–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. France EF, Uny I, Ring N, Turley RL, Maxwell M, Duncan EAS, et al. A methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct to articulate the complex analytical phases. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Noblit GW, Hare RD, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies: sage; 1988.

  78. Leung D. Granting death with dignity: patient, family and professional perspectives. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2007;13(4):170–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Rodríguez-Prat A, Balaguer A, Booth A, Monforte-Royo C. Understanding patients' experiences of the wish to hasten death: An updated and expanded systematic review and meta-ethnography. BMJ Open. 2017;7(9).

  80. Bylund-Grenklo T, Werkander-Harstäde C, Sandgren A, Benzein E, Östlund U. Dignity in life and care: The perspectives of Swedish patients in a palliative care context. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2019;25(4):193–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Pleschberger S. Dignity and the challenge of dying in nursing homes: The residents’ view. Age Ageing. 2007;36(2):197–202.

  82. Duarte Enes SP. An exploration of dignity in palliative care. Palliat Med. 2003;17(3):263–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Rodriguez-Prat A, Monforte-Royo C, Porta-Sales J, Escribano X, Balaguer A. Patient perspectives of dignity, autonomy and control at the end of life: Systematic review and meta-ethnography. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(3).

  84. Parpa E, Kostopoulou S, Tsilika E, Galanos A, Katsaragakis S, Mystakidou K. Psychometric properties of the Greek version of the Patient Dignity Inventory in advanced cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017;54(3):376–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Macdonald D. Beyond, “death with dignity”: A hospice vignette. Am J Hosp Palliat Med. 2000;17(2):78–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Albers G, Pasman HR, Rurup ML, de Vet HC, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD. Analysis of the construct of dignity and content validity of the patient dignity inventory. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. van Gennip IE, Pasman HRW, Oosterveld-Vlug MG, Willems DL, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD. The development of a model of dignity in illness based on qualitative interviews with seriously ill patients. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(8):1080–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Bruun Lorentsen V, Nåden D, Sæteren B. The meaning of dignity when the patients’ bodies are falling apart. Nurs Open. 2019;6(3):1163–70.

  89. Gerry EM. Privacy and dignity in a hospice environment - The development of a clinical audit. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2011;17(2):92–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Staats K, Grov EK, Husebo BS, Tranvag O. Dignity and loss of dignity: Experiences of older women living with incurable cancer at home. Health Care for Women International. 2020:No-Specified.

  91. Dening KH, Jones L, Sampson EL. Preferences for end-of-life care: A nominal group study of people with dementia and their family carers. Palliat Med. 2013;27(5):409–17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Choo PY, Tan-Ho G, Dutta O, Patinadan PV, Ho AHY. Reciprocal Dynamics of Dignity in End-of-Life Care: A Multiperspective Systematic Review of Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research. Am J Hosp Palliat Med. 2020;37(5):385–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Östlund U, Blomberg K, Söderman A, Werkander Harstäde C. How to conserve dignity in palliative care: Suggestions from older patients, significant others, and healthcare professionals in Swedish municipal care. BMC Palliative Care. 2019;18(1).

  94. Bovero A, Botto R, Adriano B, Opezzo M, Tesio V, Torta R. Exploring demoralization in end-of-life cancer patients: Prevalence, latent dimensions, and associations with other psychosocial variables. Palliat Support Care. 2019;17(5):596–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Lee GL, Ow R, Akhileswaran R, Goh CR. Exploring the experience of dignified palliative care in patients with advanced cancer and families: A feasibility study in Singapore. Progress in Palliative Care. 2013;21(3):131–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Tracy MF, Skillings K. Upholding dignity in hospitalized elders. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2007;19(3):303–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Rodríguez-Prat A, van Leeuwen E. Assumptions and moral understanding of the wish to hasten death: a philosophical review of qualitative studies. Med Health Care Philos. 2018;21(1):63–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Balducci L. Death and dying: What the patient wants. Annals of Oncology. 2012;23(SUPPL.3):56–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Franco ME, Salvetti MG, Donato SCT, Carvalho RT, Franck EM. Perception of dignity of patients in palliative care. Texto e Contexto Enfermagem. 2019;28.

  100. Rudilla D, Oliver A, Galiana L, Barreto P. A new measure of home care patients’ dignity at the end of life: The Palliative Patients’ Dignity Scale (PPDS). Palliat Support Care. 2016;14(2):99–108.

  101. Hughes A, Davies B, Gudmundsdottir M. “Can you give me respect?” Experiences of the urban poor on a dedicated AIDS nursing home unit. JANAC. 2008;19(5):342–56.

  102. Missel M, Bergenholtz HM. The Understanding of Dignity Among In-Hospital Patients Living With Incurable Esophageal Cancer. Cancer Nurs. 2020.

  103. Franklin L, Ternestedt B, Nordenfelt L. Views on dignity of elderly nursing home residents. Nurs Ethics. 2006;13(2):130–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Chochinov HM, Hack T, Hassard T, Kristjanson LJ, McClement S, Harlos M. Dignity in the terminally ill: A cross-sectional, cohort study. The Lancet. 2002;360(9350):2026–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Bovero A, Sedghi NA, Opezzo M, Botto R, Pinto M, Ieraci V, et al. Dignity-related existential distress in end-of-life cancer patients: Prevalence, underlying factors, and associated coping strategies. Psychooncology. 2018;27(11):2631–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Laursen L, Schønau MN, Bergenholtz HM, Siemsen M, Christensen M, Missel M. Table in the corner: A qualitative study of life situation and perspectives of the everyday lives of oesophageal cancer patients in palliative care. BMC Palliative Care. 2019;18(1).

  107. Huang HS, Zeng TY, Mao J, Liu XH. The Understanding of Death in Terminally Ill Cancer Patients in China: An Initial Study. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2018;27(3):421–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Hall S, Davies JM, Gao W, Higginson IJ. Patterns of dignity-related distress at the end of life: A cross-sectional study of patients with advanced cancer and care home residents. Palliat Med. 2014;28(9):1118–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. McDermott P. Patient dignity question: Feasible, dignity-conserving intervention in a rural hospice. Can Fam Physician. 2019;65(11):812–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Vlug MG, De Vet HCW, Pasman HRW, Rurup ML, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD. The development of an instrument to measure factors that influence self-perceived dignity. J Palliat Med. 2011;14(5):578–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Volker DL, Kahn D, Penticuff JH. Patient control and end-of-life care part II: the patient perspective. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2004;31(5):954–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Bovero A, Sedghi NA, Botto R, Tosi C, Ieraci V, Torta R. Dignity in cancer patients with a life expectancy of a few weeks. Implementation of the factor structure of the Patient Dignity Inventory and dignity assessment for a patient-centered clinical intervention: A cross-sectional study. Palliative and Supportive Care. 2018;16(6):648–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Aoun S, Deas K, Skett K. Older people living alone at home with terminal cancer. Eur J Cancer Care. 2016;25(3):356–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Kostopoulou S, Parpa E, Tsilika E, Katsaragakis S, Papazoglou I, Zygogianni A, et al. Advanced cancer patients’ perceptions of dignity: The impact of psychologically distressing symptoms and preparatory grief. J Palliat Care. 2018;33(2):88–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Hack TF, McClement SE, Chochinov HM, Cann BJ, Hassard TH, Kristjanson LJ, et al. Learning from dying patients during their final days: Life reflections gleaned from dignity therapy. Palliat Med. 2010;24(7):715–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Aoun S, Kristjanson LJ, Oldham L, Currow D. A qualitative investigation of the palliative care needs of terminally ill people who live alone. Collegian. 2008;15(1):3–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Hall S, Goddard C, Opio D, Speck P, Higginson IJ. Feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness of Dignity Therapy for older people in care homes: A phase II randomized controlled trial of a brief palliative care psychotherapy. Palliat Med. 2012;26(5):703–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Chochinov HM, Johnston W, McClement SE, Hack TF, Dufault B, Enns M, et al. Dignity and distress towards the end of life across four non-cancer populations. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(1).

  119. Chochinov HM, Hack T, Hassard T, Kristjanson LJ, McClement S, Harlos M. Dignity and Psychotherapeutic Considerations in End-of-Life Care. J Palliat Care. 2004;20(3):134–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Iani L, De Vincenzo F, Maruelli A, Chochinov HM, Ragghianti M, Durante S, et al. Dignity Therapy Helps Terminally Ill Patients Maintain a Sense of Peace: Early Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11.

  121. Hammami MM, Al Gaai E, Hammami S, Attala S. Exploring end of life priorities in Saudi males: usefulness of Q-methodology. BMC Palliat Care. 2015;14:66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. de Voogd X, Oosterveld-Vlug MG, Torensma M, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Willems DL, Suurmond JL. A dignified last phase of life for patients with a migration background: A qualitative study. Palliat Med. 2020;34(10):1385–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Hall S, Chochinov H, Harding R, Murray S, Richardson A, Higginson IJ. A Phase II randomised controlled trial assessing the feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness of Dignity Therapy for older people in care homes: Study protocol. BMC Geriatrics. 2009;9(1).

  124. Ho AH, Leung PP, Tse DM, Pang SM, Chochinov HM, Neimeyer RA, et al. Dignity amidst liminality: healing within suffering among Chinese terminal cancer patients. Death Stud. 2013;37(10):953–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Ke L-S, Huang X, Hu W-Y, O’Connor M, Lee S. Experiences and perspectives of older people regarding advance care planning: A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. Palliat Med. 2017;31(5):394–405.

  126. Dobratz MC. “All my saints are within me”: Expressions of end-of-life spirituality. Palliat Support Care. 2013;11(3):191–8.

  127. Clarke DM. Growing old and getting sick: Maintaining a positive spirit at the end of life. Aust J Rural Health. 2007;15(3):148–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Albers G, Pasman HR, Deliens L, de Vet HC, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD. Does health status affect perceptions of factors influencing dignity at the end of life? J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013;45(6):1030–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Oosterveld-Vlug MG, Pasman HRW, Van Gennip IE, De Vet HCW, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD. Assessing the validity and intraobserver agreement of the MIDAM-LTC; An instrument measuring factors that influence personal dignity in long-term care facilities. Palliat Med. 2014;28(6):589.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Wang L, Wei Y, Xue L, Guo Q, Liu W. Dignity and its influencing factors in patients with cancer in North China: A cross-sectional study. Curr Oncol. 2019;26(2):e188–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Hall S, Goddard C, Martin P, Opio D, Speck P. Exploring the impact of dignity therapy on distressed patients with advanced cancer: Three case studies. Psychooncology. 2013;22(8):1748–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Mah L, Grief C, Grossman D, Rootenberg M. Assessment of patient dignity in geriatric palliative care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(11):2178–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Coulehan J. “They wouldn’t pay attention”: Death without dignity. Am J Hosp Palliat Med. 2005;22(5):339–43.

  134. Zaki-Nejad M, Nikbakht-Nasrabadi A, Manookian A, Shamshiri A. The effect of dignity therapy on the quality of life of patients with cancer receiving palliative care. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2020;25(4):286–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. Waskul DD, van der Riet P. The abject embodiment of cancer patients: Dignity, selfhood, and the grotesque body. Symb Interact. 2002;25(4):487–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Hall S, Edmonds P, Harding R, Chochinov H, Higginson IJ. Assessing the feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness of dignity therapy for people with advanced cancer referred to a hospital-based palliative care team: Study protocol. BMC Palliative Care. 2009;8.

  137. Esteves Franco M, de Góes Salvetti M, Teixeira Donato SC, Tavares de Carvalho R, Franck EM. PERCEPTION OF DIGNITY OF PATIENTS IN PALLIATIVE CARE. Texto & Contexto Enfermagem. 2019;28:1–15.

  138. Lagarrigue A, Mongiatti M, Bayle P, Telmon N, Rougé D. Deprivation of liberty and end of life: Does die with dignity mean to die free? Medecine Palliative. 2014;13(4):200–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Watanabe K, MacLeod R. Care for dying patients with primary malignant brain tumor - Respecting dignity. Neurol Med Chir. 2005;45(12):657–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Chochinov HM, Hack T, McClement S, Kristjanson L, Harlos M. Dignity in the terminally ill: A developing empirical model. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(3):433–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Bhutia KD, T L, Devi ES. Beliefs, Preferences and Practices of End of Life Care among Elderly. Medico-Legal Update. 2019;19(2):53–6.

  142. Fernández‐Sola C, Granero‐Molina J, Díaz‐Cortés MdM, Jiménez‐López FR, Roman‐López P, Saez‐Molina E, et al. Characterization, conservation and loss of dignity at the end‐of‐ life in the emergency department. A qualitative protocol. Journal of Advanced Nursing (John Wiley & Sons, Inc). 2018;74(6):1392–401.

  143. Gysels M, Reilly C, Jolley C, Pannell C, Spoorendonk F, Bellas H, et al. Dignity through integrated symptom management: Lessons from the breathlessness support service. Palliat Med. 2014;28(6):692.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Lin C-P, Cheng S-Y, Mori M, Suh S-Y, Chan HY-L, Martina D, et al. 2019 Taipei Declaration on Advance Care Planning: A Cultural Adaptation of End-of-Life Care Discussion. New Rochelle, New York: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.; 2019. p. 1175–7.

  145. Martins Pereira S, Pasman HR, van der Heide A, van Delden JJ, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD. Old age and forgoing treatment: a nationwide mortality follow-back study in the Netherlands. J Med Ethics. 2015;41(9):766–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Beck A, Cottingham AH, Stutz PV, Gruber R, Bernat JK, Helft PR, et al. Abbreviated dignity therapy for adults with advanced-stage cancer and their family caregivers: Qualitative analysis of a pilot study. Palliat Support Care. 2019;17(3):262–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. McClement SE, Chochinov HM, Hack TF, Kristjanson LJ, Harlos M. Dignity-conserving care: application of research findings to practice. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2004;10(4):173–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Lawrence RM. Dementia. A personal legacy beyond words. Mental Health, Religion & Culture. 2007;10(6):553–62.

  149. Schryer C, McDougall A, Tait GR, Lingard L. Creating discursive order at the end of life: The Role of Genres in Palliative Care Settings. Writ Commun. 2012;29(2):111–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Vehling S, Mehnert A. Symptom burden, loss of dignity, and demoralization in patients with cancer: A mediation model. Psychooncology. 2014;23(3):283–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Volker DL, Kahn D, Penticuff JH. Patient control and end-of-life care part II: the advanced practice nurse perspective. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2004;31(5):954–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Van Gennip IE, Pasman R, Oosterveld-Vlug M, Willems D, Onwuteaka-Philipsen B. Changes in sense of dignity over the course of illness: A longitudinal study into the perspectives of seriously ill patients. Palliat Med. 2014;28(6):674–5.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Bernat JK, Helft PR, Wilhelm LR, Hook NE, Brown LF, Althouse SK, et al. Piloting an abbreviated dignity therapy intervention using a legacy-building web portal for adults with terminal cancer: a feasibility and acceptability study. Psychooncology. 2015;24(12):1823–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  154. Chapple A, Evans J, McPherson A, Payne S. Patients with pancreatic cancer and relatives talk about preferred place of death and what influenced their preferences: a qualitative study. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2011;1(3):291–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Thorley J. Too many die without dignity. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(7): e315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Bentley B, O'Connor M, Breen LJ, Kane R. Feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness of dignity therapy for family carers of people with motor neurone disease. BMC Palliative Care. 2014;13(1).

  157. Virdun C, Luckett T, Lorenz K, Davidson PM, Phillips J. Dying in the hospital setting: A meta-synthesis identifying the elements of end-of-life care that patients and their families describe as being important. Palliat Med. 2017;31(7):587–601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Liu X, Liu Z, Cheng Q, Xu N, Liu H, Ying W. Effects of meaning in life and individual characteristics on dignity in patients with advanced cancer in China: a cross-sectional study. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29(5):2319–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Chochinov HM, Hack T, Hassard T, Kristjanson LJ, McClement S, Harlos M. Understanding the Will to Live in Patients Nearing Death. Psychosomatics: Journal of Consultation and Liaison Psychiatry. 2005;46(1):7–10.

  160. Guerrero-Torrelles M, Monforte-Royo C, Rodriguez-Prat A, Porta-Sales J, Balaguer A. Understanding meaning in life interventions in patients with advanced disease: A systematic review and realist synthesis. Palliat Med. 2017;31(9):798–813.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Li-Shan K, Xiaoyan H, Wen-Yu H, Margaret OC, Susan L. Experiences and perspectives of older people regarding advance care planning: A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. Palliat Med. 2017;31(5):394–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. Dean RAK. Transforming the moment: Humor and laughter in palliative care: University of Manitoba (Canada); 2003.

  163. Meier EA, Gallegos JV, Montross-Thomas LP, Depp CA, Irwin SA, Jeste DV. Defining a good death (successful dying): Literature review and a call for research and public dialogue. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016;24(4):261–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  164. Lindström I, Gaston-Johansson F, Danielson E. Patients’ participation in end-of-life care: relations to different variables as documented in the patients’ records. Palliat Support Care. 2010;8(3):247–53.

  165. Passik SD, Kirsh KL, Leibee S, Kaplan LS, Love C, Napier E, et al. A feasibility study of dignity psychotherapy delivered via telemedicine. Palliat Support Care. 2004;2(2):149–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. Sneesby L. Home is where I want to die: Kelly’s journey. Contemp Nurse. 2014;46(2):251–3.

  167. Mah L, Grossman D, Grief C, Rootenberg M. Association between patient dignity and anxiety in geriatric palliative care. Palliat Med. 2013;27(5):478–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. de Oliveira SG, Pacheco STA, Nunes MDR, Caldas CP, da Cunha AL, Peres PLP. Bioethical aspects of health care provided to older adults at the end of their lives. Revista Enfermagem. 2020;28:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  169. Brennan F. ‘To die with dignity’: an update on Palliative Care. Intern Med J. 2017;47(8):865–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. Alvargonzález D. Alzheimer’s disease and euthanasia. Journal of Aging Studies. 2012;26(4):377–85.

  171. Hirai K, Miyashita M, Morita T, Sanjo M, Uchitomi Y. Good Death in Japanese Cancer Care: A Qualitative Study. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2006;31(2):140–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Vosit-Steller J, Swinkin J, McCabe K. PERCEPTION OF DIGNITY IN OLDER PEOPLE AND AT THE END OF LIFE. End of Life Journal. 2013;3(2):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. Finlay IG. Quality of life to the end. Commun Med. 2005;2(1):91–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Robinson EM, Phipps M, Purtilo RB, Tsoumas A, Hamel-Nardozzi M. Complexities in Decision Making for Persons with Disabilities Nearing End of Life. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2006;13(4):54–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Hemati Z, Ashouri E, AllahBakhshian M, Pourfarzad Z, Shirani F, Safazadeh S, et al. Dying with dignity: A concept analysis. J Clin Nurs. 2016;25(9–10):1218–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. Kurosu M. Argument on removal of respirator in Japan. Leg Med. 2009;11(SUPPL. 1):S399–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  177. Sugarman J. Toward treatment with respect and dignity in the intensive care unit. Narrative inquiry in bioethics. 2015;5(1):1A-4A.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Łabuś-Centek M, Jagielski D, Krajnik M. The meaning of dignity patient question and changes in the approach to this issue of cancer patients during home hospice care. Palliative Medicine in Practice. 2020;14(2):89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. Viftrup DT, Hvidt NC, Prinds C. Dignity in end-of-life care at hospice: An action research study. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences. 2020:No-Specified.

  180. Montross L, Winters KD, Irwin SA. Dignity therapy implementation in a community-based hospice setting. J Palliat Med. 2011;14(6):729–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  181. Grassi L, Costantini A, Caruso R, Brunetti S, Marchetti P, Sabato S, et al. Dignity and psychosocial-related variables in advanced and nonadvanced cancer patients by using the Patient Dignity Inventory-Italian version. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017;53(2):279–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  182. Chochinov HM, Hassard T, McClement S, Hack T, Kristjanson LJ, Harlos M, et al. The patient dignity inventory: a novel way of measuring dignity-related distress in palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2008;36(6):559–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  183. Alsuwaigh R, Radha Krishna LK. How do english-speaking cancer patients conceptualise personhood? Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2015;44(6):207–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  184. Street AF, Wakelin K, Hordern A, Bruce N, Horey D. Dignity and deferral narratives as strategies in facilitated technology-based support groups for people with advanced cancer. Nurs Res Pract. 2012;2012: 647836.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  185. Rudilla D, Galiana L, Oliver A, Barreto P. Comparing counseling and dignity therapies in home care patients: A pilot study. Palliat Support Care. 2016;14(4):321–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  186. Dose AM, Hubbard JM, Mansfield AS, McCabe PJ, Krecke CA, Sloan JA. Feasibility and Acceptability of a Dignity Therapy/Life Plan Intervention for Patients With Advanced Cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2017;44(5):E194-e202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. Kestenbaum A, Shields M, James J, Hocker W, Morgan S, Karve S, et al. What impact do chaplains have? A pilot study of spiritual AIM for advanced cancer patients in outpatient palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017;54(5):707–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  188. Li H-C, Richardson A, Speck P, Armes J. Conceptualizations of dignity at the end of life: Exploring theoretical and cultural congruence with dignity therapy. J Adv Nurs. 2014;70(12):2920–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  189. Ben Natan M, Garfinkel D, Shachar I. End-of-life needs as perceived by terminally ill older adult patients, family and staff. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2010;14(4):299–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. Gonçalves de Oliveira S, de Araújo Pacheco ST, Rodrigues Nunes MD, Pereira Caldas C, Loureiro da Cunha A, Pereira Peres PL. Bioethical aspects of health care provided to older adults at the end of their lives. Revista Enfermagem UERJ. 2020;28:1–9.

  191. Uwimana J, Struthers P. What is the preferred place of care at the end of life for HIV/AIDS patients in countries affected by civil war and genocide: The case of Rwanda? Progress in Palliative Care. 2008;16(3):129–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  192. Bastos Cogo S, Lerch LV. Anticipated directives and living will for terminal patients: an integrative review. Rev Bras Enferm. 2015;68(3):464–74.

    Google Scholar 

  193. Bartlett VL, Finder SG. An Actual Advance in Advance Directives: Moving from Patient Choices to Patient Voices in Advance Care Planning. Asian Bioethics Review. 2018;10(1):21–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  194. Korman MB, Ellis J, Moore J, Bilodeau D, Dulmage S, Fitch M, et al. Dignity therapy for patients with brain tumours: qualitative reports from patients, caregivers and practitioners. Ann Palliat Med. 2021;10(1):838–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  195. García Pérez AI, Dapueto JJ. Case report of a computer-assisted psychotherapy of a patient with ALS. Int J Psychiatry Med. 2014;48(3):229–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  196. Vilalta A, Valls J, Porta J, Vinas J. Evaluation of spiritual needs of patients with advanced cancer in a palliative care unit. J Palliat Med. 2014;17(5):592–600.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  197. Akechi T, Akazawa T, Komori Y, Morita T, Otani H, Shinjo T, et al. Dignity therapy: Preliminary cross-cultural findings regarding implementation among Japanese advanced cancer patients. Palliat Med. 2012;26(5):768–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  198. McClement S, Chochinov HM, Hack T, Hassard T, Kristjanson LJ, Harlos M. Dignity therapy: Family member perspectives. J Palliat Med. 2007;10(5):1076–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  199. Aoun SM, Chochinov HM, Kristjanson LJ. Dignity therapy for people with motor neuron disease and their family caregivers: A feasibility study. J Palliat Med. 2015;18(1):31–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  200. Marchand L. Existential suffering in advanced cancer: The buffering effects of narrative. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016;51(2):424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  201. Johns SA. Translating dignity therapy into practice: effects and lessons learned. Omega (Westport). 2013;67(1–2):135–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  202. Houmann LJ, Chochinov HM, Kristjanson LJ, Petersen MA, Groenvold M. A prospective evaluation of dignity therapy in advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care. Palliat Med. 2014;28(5):448–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  203. Wirth M. Awareness and dying: The problem of sedating “existential suffering” in palliative care. Ethical Perspectives. 2016;23(2):307–26.

  204. Hack TF, McClement SE, Chochinov HM, Dufault B, Johnston W, Enns MW, et al. Assessing Symptoms, Concerns, and Quality of Life in Noncancer Patients at End of Life: How Concordant Are Patients and Family Proxy Members? Journal of Pain & Symptom Management. 2018;56(2):N.PAG-N.PAG.

  205. Reed DA, Beckman TJ, Wright SM, Levine RB, Kern DE, Cook DA. Predictive validity evidence for medical education research study quality instrument scores: quality of submissions to JGIM’s Medical Education Special Issue.  Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2008;23(7):903–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  206. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  207. Haig A, Dozier M. BEME guide no. 3: systematic searching for evidence in medical education--part 2: constructing searches. Medical teacher. 2003;25(5):463–84.

  208. Gordon M, Gibbs T. STORIES statement: publication standards for healthcare education evidence synthesis. BMC Med. 2014;12(1):143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  209. Lee H, Leung AK-y, Kim YH. Unpacking East–West Differences in the Extent of Self-Enhancement from the Perspective of Face versus Dignity Culture. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2014;8.

  210. Hemati Z, Ashouri E, AllahBakhshian M, Pourfarzad Z, Shirani F, Safazadeh S, et al. Dying with dignity: a concept analysis. J Clin Nurs. 2016;25(9–10):1218–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to dedicate this paper to the late Dr. S Radha Krishna and the late Dr. Cynthia Goh whose advice and ideas were integral to the success of this study.

Funding

No funding was received for this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore

    Keith Zi Yuan Chua, Elaine Li Ying Quah, Yun Xue Lim, Chloe Keyi Goh, Jieyu Lim, Darius Wei Jun Wan, Simone Meiqi Ong, Chi Sum Chong, Kennan Zhi Guang Yeo, Laura Shih Hui Goh, Ray Meng See, Yun Ting Ong & Lalit Krishna

  2. Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, 11 Hospital Crescent, National Cancer Centre, Singapore, 169610, Singapore

    Keith Zi Yuan Chua, Elaine Li Ying Quah, Yun Xue Lim, Chloe Keyi Goh, Jieyu Lim, Darius Wei Jun Wan, Simone Meiqi Ong, Chi Sum Chong, Kennan Zhi Guang Yeo, Laura Shih Hui Goh, Ray Meng See, Yun Ting Ong, Eng Koon Ong, Jamie Xuelian Zhou & Lalit Krishna

  3. Division of Cancer Education, 11 Hospital Crescent, National Cancer Centre, Singapore, 169610, Singapore

    Alexia Sze Inn Lee, Min Chiam, Eng Koon Ong, Simon Yew Kuang Ong & Lalit Krishna

  4. Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, 8 College Rd, Singapore, 169857, Singapore

    Eng Koon Ong, Jamie Xuelian Zhou, Simon Yew Kuang Ong & Lalit Krishna

  5. Medical Social Services, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Rd, Singapore, 169608, Singapore

    Crystal Lim

  6. Division of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Crescent, Singapore, 169610, Singapore

    Simon Yew Kuang Ong

  7. Academic Palliative Care Unit, United Kingdom Cancer Research Centre, University of Liverpool, University of Liverpool, 200 London Rd, Liverpool, L3 9TA, UK

    Lalit Krishna

  8. Centre of Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, 21 Lower Kent Ridge Rd, Singapore, 119077, Singapore

    Lalit Krishna

  9. The Palliative Care Centre for Excellence in Research and Education, PalC c/o Dover Park Hospice, 10 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, Singapore, 308436, Singapore

    Lalit Krishna

Authors
  1. Keith Zi Yuan Chua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elaine Li Ying Quah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yun Xue Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chloe Keyi Goh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jieyu Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Darius Wei Jun Wan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Simone Meiqi Ong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Chi Sum Chong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kennan Zhi Guang Yeo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Laura Shih Hui Goh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Ray Meng See
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Alexia Sze Inn Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Yun Ting Ong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Min Chiam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Eng Koon Ong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Jamie Xuelian Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Crystal Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Simon Yew Kuang Ong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Lalit Krishna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors were involved in data curation, formal analysis, investigation, preparing the original draft of the manuscript as well as reviewing and editing the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lalit Krishna.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

NA

Consent for publication

NA

Competing interests

All authors have no competing interests

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Tabulated summaries.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chua, K.Z.Y., Quah, E.L.Y., Lim, Y.X. et al. A systematic scoping review on patients’ perceptions of dignity. BMC Palliat Care 21, 118 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-022-01004-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-022-01004-4

Keywords

  • Dignity
  • Patients
  • Review
  • Medicine

BMC Palliative Care

ISSN: 1472-684X

Contact us