Skip to main content
Download PDF

The association between social connectedness and euthanasia and assisted suicide and related constructs: systematic review

BMC Public Health volume 24, Article number: 1057 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS) requests are common in countries where they are legal. Loneliness and social isolation are modifiable risk factors for mental illness and suicidal behaviour and are common in terminal illness. Our objective was to summarise available literature to clarify whether these and related measures of social connectedness might contribute to requests for EAS.

Methods

We conducted a pre-registered (PROSPERO CRD42019160508) systematic review and narrative synthesis of quantitative literature investigating associations between social connectedness and a) requested/actual EAS, b) attitudes towards EAS, and c) a desire for hastened death (DHD) by searching six databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar) from inception to November 2022, rating eligible peer-reviewed, empirical studies using the QATSO quality assessment tool.

Results

We identified 37 eligible studies that investigated associations with a) requested/actual EAS (n = 9), b) attitudes to EAS (n = 16), and c) DHD (n = 14), with limited overlap, including 17,359 participants. The majority (62%) were rated at medium/high risk of bias. Focussing our narrative synthesis on the more methodologically sound studies, we found no evidence to support an association between different constructs of social connectedness and requested or actual EAS, and very little evidence to support an association with attitudes to EAS or an association with DHD.

Conclusions

Our findings for all age groups are consistent with a those of a previous systematic review focussed on older adults and suggest that poor social connectedness is not a clear risk factor for EAS or for measures more distally related to EAS. However, we acknowledge low study quality in some studies in relation to sampling, unvalidated exposure/outcome measures, cross-sectional design, unadjusted analyses, and multiple testing. Clinical assessment should focus on modifying established risk factors for suicide and EAS, such as hopelessness and depression, as well as improving any distressing aspects of social disconnectedness to improve quality of life.

Funding

UKRI, NIHR.

Peer Review reports

Background

Euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS) are becoming legal in an increasing number of countries (including Australia, Belgium, Switzerland, Colombia, and Canada) and US states [1,2,3], with many other countries debating the issue of legalisation. The UK government is considering whether to allow assisted dying for terminally ill people [4], reflecting a high level of public support but divergent views of politicians, faith groups, and clinicians [5, 6]. Within countries or states where EAS is legal, between 0.3 and 4.6% of deaths are attributed to EAS [3], and the number of EAS requests and deaths attributable to EAS is rising [7, 8]. Most countries operate under strict restrictions, allowing EAS for those with either a terminal illness or serious physical illness causing intolerable suffering that cannot be relieved, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or terminal cancer [9, 10]. This is strictly monitored, aiming to achieve the goal that all patients receive the best end-of-life care aligned with their preferences. In some countries (such as Belgium and the Netherlands) EAS is extended to people based on a psychiatric disorder deemed to be causing suffering that is ‘unbearable and without prospect of improvement’, such as treatment-resistant depression [11]; often termed psychiatric EAS [12]. Such cases are often characterised by loneliness or social isolation, and disagreement between clinicians [13], and not all such patients have received evidence-based treatments [14]. The procedures for granting EAS vary substantially between countries and contexts, and decision-making should always take account of modifiable risk factors for suicidal thoughts. There are no reliable figures on how many people travel abroad to access EAS, or the proportion of suicides in which an individual had tried to access EAS. There is also no clear evidence that rates of (non-assisted) suicide change significantly in countries after EAS is introduced [15].

Terminology classifying EAS is contentious, reflecting the strong views of patients, clinicians, and the public regarding the ethics of these practices [16,17,18]. The term euthanasia describes the act of deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve suffering, and can be defined as passive (i.e., by omitting treatment such as life support or life-saving drugs with patient consent) or active (i.e., through deliberately and knowingly administering a sedative or relaxant drug to a patient who does not otherwise need it, at a dose that has the aim of ending their life, with the patient’s consent). The term physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and the related term physician-assisted dying (PAD) apply to cases in which a physician provides a patient with a drug or intervention in the knowledge that the patient will use this to end their life [14, 19, 20]. Assisted suicide describes where active euthanasia is enacted by a relative or carer, who has obtained those drugs with the intention of supplying them to an individual, who takes them willingly with the intention of dying. Whilst there is a considerable degree of overlap between the terms euthanasia and assisted suicide, euthanasia is defined as a doctor ending someone’s life with their consent, whereas physician assisted suicide and assisted suicide define the act of supporting someone in ending their life by providing them with the means to do so [21]. Due to these conceptual overlaps, this review uses the unifying label Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (EAS) to describe euthanasia, PAS, PAD, and assisted suicide.

The term desire for hastened death or desire to hasten death (DHD) is used among people with a terminal illness to describe suicidal thoughts or requests for assisted suicide or euthanasia, regardless of whether they are legal in the patient’s country [22]. DHD is highly correlated with depression and suicidal ideation and regarded as a marker of profound psychological distress [23], signalling a need to identify and address modifiable risk factors for suicidality. Among people with a terminal illness these include clinical factors, such as pain and depression, and social factors, such as loneliness, poor social support, and financial concerns [24,25,26]. Reasons for requesting EAS include perceptions of unacceptable quality of life (commonly due to loss of independence, mobility, communication, or participation in meaningful activity) and fear of future suffering or disability [27]. It is therefore important to understand the factors driving people to consider EAS (via DHD), highlighting whether any risk factors can be further modified. This might also inform the development of approaches developed to support people in making an informed decision as to whether to end their life.

Theoretical models of suicide and suicidal behaviour, although they do not apply directly to EAS, propose that suicide arises from a complex combination of biological, social, psychological, and environmental factors, including social connectedness, interacting with adverse life events [28]. Whether a person acts on their suicidal ideation, including whether someone with terminal illness seeks EAS, is likely to be determined by the interplay of these influences. Thwarted belongingness is a key social connectedness construct in theoretical models of suicide that is also likely to apply to decision-making around EAS. It describes what arises when the fundamental need to form and maintain strong, stable interpersonal relationships is unmet, resulting in feelings of disconnection. This is postulated to influence the emergence of suicidal thoughts in someone who feels defeated and entrapped. The Interpersonal Theory of Suicide considers thwarted belongingness as comprising a) loneliness and b) the absence of reciprocal caring relationships [29]. Loneliness is defined as a subjective unpleasant feeling arising from a mismatch between a person’s desired and perceived level of meaningful social relationships [30]. Studies using the approach of confirmatory factor analysis have shown convergent associations of thwarted belongingness with loneliness [31] and there are also correlations of thwarted belongingness with other measures of social connectedness [32]. Loneliness is distinct from more objective measures of social connectedness, such as social isolation, social capital, and social network. Social isolation is an objective measure of the number of social connections, quantified in terms of social network size and number of meaningful ties [33]. It is therefore possible to have a large number of social contacts but still experience feelings of loneliness, or vice versa [34].

Loneliness is associated with a range of adverse health outcomes [35,36,37], including increased all-cause mortality [38] and suicide [39]. The association between loneliness and suicidal thoughts and attempts [36, 37, 40] is at least partially mediated by depression [40]. Social isolation is also associated with poor physical and mental health [41], and with suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, and suicide [39, 42, 43]. Conversely, social support protects against suicidal ideation [44]. Given the high prevalence of loneliness and social isolation in people with terminal illness [45], and among people who request EAS for psychiatric indications [13], and its stigmatising nature [45], it is important to understand its contribution to decision-making around EAS. One previous systematic review of factors predicting request for or attitudes to EAS in older adults found no association with loneliness or with satisfaction with family relationships [46]. However, no systematic review to date has summarised associations between social connectedness and EAS across all age groups. In this review we aimed to describe the association between social connectedness and a) requested/actual EAS, b) attitudes to EAS, and c) DHD. We used the umbrella term social connectedness to describe a person’s perceptions of their relationships with others, including constructs such as loneliness, social isolation, social support, and other terms used to describe the quantity and/or quality of relationships (e.g., living alone; satisfaction with relationships). This met our objective to expand our scope to include measures beyond loneliness and social isolation, to capture all studies investigating associations with social disconnectedness.

Methods

We conducted the review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [47] (see Appendix 1a and 1b) and guidance for conducting narrative synthesis in healthcare [48]. We pre-registered the review protocol on PROSPERO (CRD42019160508).

Search strategy

We searched five psychological and medical electronic databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science) from inception to November 2022. We conducted the initial search on 16th December 2019, repeated this in July 2021 as an interim update, and then finally on 17th November 2022 to capture all papers published until the end of October 2022. We used the following search terms: lonel* OR social isolation* OR social network$ OR social support* OR social contact* OR social relation* OR social capital* OR confiding relation* AND euthan* OR assist* suicide* OR assist* death*. Search terms were agreed by the interdisciplinary team, which included experts in loneliness research and a psychiatrist with experience of psychiatry in palliative care settings. We also reviewed the first 200 hits from Google Scholar for each combination of search terms. Finally, we also used reference searching of potentially eligible articles to identify additional citations.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Our inclusion criteria were any cross-sectional or longitudinal epidemiological study investigating an association between social connectedness (including loneliness, social isolation, social support, social capital, confiding relationships, and thwarted belongingness) and three outcomes a) EAS (requested or actual), b) attitudes towards EAS (including using hypothetical scenarios), and c) DHD. The first of these categories related to our main research question, but we included studies providing information on attitudes to EAS and on DHD to provide a broader perspective.

Studies were included if quantitative data related to routine records of EAS (actual/requested), patients’ ratings (but not solely their caregivers as a proxy measure), or the accounts of involved healthcare professionals or carers. We included studies regardless of whether they used validated measures of the above constructs, and were interested in any effect measures reported.

We excluded studies that were not written in English, not empirical research, and not published in a peer-reviewed journal; excluding books, book chapters, reviews, abstracts, posters, dissertations and editorials. We also excluded studies considering passive euthanasia only, assuming that in such cases a patient would be too incapacitated to reflect on measures of exposure/outcome.

Screening

One researcher (EC) conducted an initial screen of all titles and abstracts, and a second researcher (MB) conducted an independent screening of a random sample of 20% of citations. Any disagreements were discussed with the wider team to resolve inclusion/exclusion. One researcher (EC) completed a full text screen of all papers, and a second researcher (MB) conducted an independent screen of a randomly selected 20% of full texts. Two other researchers (AP; RB) then conducted independent checks of all included full texts. As with the initial screen, disagreements were discussed within the review team to reach consensus.

Data extraction

One researcher (EC) extracted from each study details of sample demographics, details of key measures, analytic approach, findings and interpretations, tabulating these separately for each of the three outcomes. Two researchers (AP; RB) reviewed the data extracted for 100% of the studies. Disagreements were discussed within the review team to reach consensus.

Quality assessment

We conducted quality appraisal of all included studies using an adapted version of the Quality Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies (QATSO) [49]. As per a previous systematic review on the topic of loneliness [40] we expanded the original scoring of 0–5 to 0–9, with higher scores reflecting higher quality (Appendix 2). We rated included studies on the quality of design, response rate, whether validated exposure/outcome measures were used, and whether the analysis controlled adequately for potential confounders. Where studies did not state their threshold for statistical significance, we used a threshold of p < 0.05. One researcher (EC) rated quality for all papers. The quality of each paper was independently rated by at least two researchers (EC; MB; AP; RB). Any disagreements over study quality were discussed within the team to reach consensus. No studies were excluded from the review based on quality, but all findings were presented in the context of study quality.

The certainty of the evidence available was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) scoring system [50] with GRADE criteria adapted for a narrative synthesis approach, according to Murad and colleagues [51] (see Appendix 3 for GRADE scoring criteria). Two researchers (AP; NA) independently assessed the certainty of evidence for each research question and met to resolve any inconsistencies.

Synthesis of findings

We tabulated details extracted from eligible studies, regardless of quality rating, by category of social connectedness measure. We created a table each for our three outcomes: requested/actual EAS; attitudes to EAS; DHD.

We conducted a narrative synthesis of the findings of those studies rated at a low or medium risk of bias, categorised by our three outcomes. We also noted how these findings related to legality of EAS in country/state sampled.

Results

Our initial database searches identified 2,757 citations, reduced to 2,253 following de-duplication. After title and abstract screening, 112 citations were judged potentially relevant. Following full text screening, we identified 30 studies eligible for inclusion. Google Scholar searches identified a further five eligible studies, resulting in a total of 35 papers. Our July 2021 search identified one further eligible paper, which was included. Our November 2022 search identified four potentially relevant studies, but all were excluded on full text screening. Throughout these searches one relevant study was identified through reference-searching and was included. A total of 37 eligible studies were included in the review (Fig. 1), accounting for 17,359 participants (range 6 to 7,534).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of included studies

Full size image

Characteristics of studies

We categorised the 37 studies by our three outcomes: requested/actual EAS (Table 1; n = 9), attitudes to EAS (Table 2; n = 16), and DHD (Table 3; n = 14), with limited overlap between categories due to use of more than one category of outcome measure. Within each of these tables we sub-classified studies by type of social connectedness exposure measure. We did not conduct a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity of the range of measures and methodologies used in identified studies, as described below.

Table 1 Summary of study characteristics and findings for requested/actual EAS (n = 9) 
Full size table
Table 2 Summary of study characteristics and findings for attitudes to EAS (n = 16) 
Full size table
Table 3 Summary of study characteristics and findings for DHD (n = 14)
Full size table

The majority of studies were cross-sectional (76%; 28/37). Of the 24% (9/37) that used longitudinal approaches, one involved repeated cross-sectional surveys of three consecutive representative samples of older adults, exploring societal changes in attitudes [63]. Across all included studies, the gender distribution was 50% female, and the mean age was 63 years. Included studies sampled populations in Australia (n = 2), Austria (n = 1), Canada (n = 4), France (n = 1), Germany (n = 2), the Netherlands (n = 3), Switzerland (n = 1), New Zealand (n = 1), the United Kingdom (UK) (n = 1), and selected states in the United States of American (USA) (n = 24). Figures do not add to 37 as some studies were conducted across multiple locations.

We ascertained whether EAS was legal in the country/state of sampling for 13/27 (89%) of studies, whilst acknowledging that people do travel abroad to enact EAS. Those sampling in countries where EAS was legal were set in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, and selected US states (Oregon, Washington). The remaining four studies were conducted across multiple locations in which EAS legislation differed [66, 67, 69, 75].

The majority of studies surveyed patients with terminal illnesses or who were already in the process of accessing EAS (n = 31). Other studies, primarily assessing attitudes to EAS, sampled people not defined by a physical health condition or by a request for EAS (n = 6). Recruitment methods included: newsletter advertisements; direct recruitment from medical centres, euthanasia organisations, palliative care units or research registers; and referrals from healthcare professionals. Data were collected using survey methods (relatives; clinical staff; patients, with or without carer support), by interview or questionnaire; as well as using data from EAS application forms; and routine data from clinical or audit records within services. Sample sizes ranged from n = 6 to n = 7,534.

Exposure and outcome measurement

Overall, only 16% (6/37) of studies used validated measures for both exposure and outcomes, and 24% (9/37) used unvalidated measures for both (Tables 1– 3). The most common pattern was for use of a validated exposure measure with an unvalidated outcome measure (38%; 14/37), and 14% (5/37) used an unvalidated exposure measure and a validated outcomes measure. Three studies (8%) used a mixture of validated and unvalidated measures for either exposure or outcome. These methodological issues influenced judgements over study quality (Table 4).

Table 4 Quality appraisal of included studies (n = 37)
Full size table

Exposure measurement

To measure exposure, 24/37 studies (65%) used validated measures of social connectedness. The majority of studies (68%, 25/37) measured social support, whilst 11% (4/37) measured loneliness, and 19% (7/37) used other measures (i.e., social isolation, thwarted belongingness, satisfaction with relationships). Measures used to capture social support included the Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ) [86], the Social Networks in Adult Life Survey [87], the Duke University of North Carolina Functional Social Support Questionnaire (FSSQ) [88], the Medical Outcomes Study – Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS) [89], the Family Relationships Index (FRI) [90], the Coping Orientations to Problems Experienced Scale (COPE) [91], and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) [92]. Measures used to capture loneliness included the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale [93] and the UCLA Loneliness Scale [94]. Some studies used instruments capturing social connectedness that had been specifically validated in palliative care populations, such as the State-of-Suffering V (SOS-V) [54], whilst others used specific items from validated measures e.g., the Quality of Death and Dying Questionnaire (QODD) [95].

Outcome measurement

Studies measured outcomes in three main ways:

Requested/actual EAS; measured using routine clinical records, such as GP, palliative care or physician records, or registers of those contacting palliative care services or voluntary sector organisations (representing those with terminal illness or advocating for EAS) seeking information on how to make a request. Death by EAS was measured objectively using records in hospices, medical centres, and voluntary sector organisations registering deaths by EAS. Four studies captured request for EAS [53, 55, 56, 60]. A further four studies included not only requests but also cases where a request for EAS had ended in death by EAS [11, 52, 58]. One study involved patients ranking lack of support in relation to other reasons for having requested PAS [59].

Attitudes towards EAS; captured using a range of unvalidated measures, including using standardised questions taken from national surveys or from previous research studies, justified based on face validity. Agreement with these measures was elicited from patients using questionnaires or interviews. In some cases, attitudes to EAS were elicited from caregivers to capture their views on EAS, whether they would support or oppose the patient’s decision to seek EAS, the perceived likelihood that the patient would request EAS and whether the patient had discussed EAS with them or hoarded drugs. Seventeen studies captured attitudes towards EAS [13, 59, 61, 63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76].

Desire for hastened death (DHD); measured using the Schedule of Attitudes Towards Hastened Death (SAHD) [83], or the Desire for Death Rating Scale (DDRS) [79], and in some studies using unvalidated measures of DHD. The SAHD is a self-report inventory and has been validated formally [83, 96]. The DDRS is a clinician-rated measure and constitutes a set of questions created for a study published in 1995 [79], since used widely as a set of standardised questions, but not formally validated. Nevertheless, the DDRS is highly correlated with the SAHD [83]. Fifteen studies captured DHD [22, 23, 57, 59, 62, 74, 77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85].

Methodological quality

We judged 19% (7/37) of studies to be at low risk of bias, 46% (17/37) at medium risk, and 35% (13/37) at high risk (Table 4). The main limitations identified included use of purposive or opportunistic sampling and/or unvalidated measures, lack of adjustment for key confounders, and uncorrected multiple testing. Only ten studies (27%) used representative sampling, and 21 (57%) used multivariable regression modelling. The majority (29/37; 78%) reported their response rate. This varied substantially depending on the methodology used (median response rate = 50%, IQR = 38%-79%).

Association between social connectedness measures requested/actual EAS (n = 9)

Overall, nine studies investigated associations between social connectedness and requested/actual EAS, of which four were rated as having a medium risk of bias and five at a high risk of bias. Focussing on those rated at medium risk of bias, one Dutch study of applications to an end-of-life clinic reported an association between loneliness and a request for EAS being rejected, although loneliness was one of at least 20 sociodemographic and clinical variables tested (Snijdewind et al., 2015) [11]. All other studies reported the absence of a significant association. A study in a Dutch sample of patients with terminal cancer found no associations between loneliness, unsatisfactory social contacts, insufficient support or subjective isolation and a request for EAS (Ruijs et al., 2014) [53]). A US study of patients with terminal illness recruited from end-of-life advocacy organisations and hospices in Oregon State found no association between social support and a request for EAS (Smith et al., 2015) [60]). A US study of the relatives of patients in Oregon State with terminal illness recruited from health services, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis organisations, and euthanasia advocacy organisations found no association between three social connectedness measures and requested/actual EAS (Smith et al. (2011) [52]. Note that EAS was legal in all the above settings at the time of sampling. Together these studies do not support an association between social connectedness and requested or actual EAS due to the potential for Type I error in the only study reporting an association with loneliness, as well as other methodological issues.

Our GRADE rating denoted low certainty of this evidence for the outcome of requested/actual EAS.

Association between social connectedness measures and attitudes to EAS (n = 16)

Overall, 16 studies investigated associations between social connectedness and attitudes to EAS, of which one was rated as having a low risk of bias, ten at a medium risk of bias, and five at a high risk of bias.

Focussing on the only study rated as low risk of bias, which sampled Austrian care-dependent adults, this reported an association between a crude measure of social isolation (living alone) and reported approval of availability of euthanasia as well as of hypothetical utilisation of euthanasia but it was not associated with approval of availability of assisted suicide or hypothetical utilisation of assisted suicide (Stolz et al., 2017) [65]. Thwarted belongingness was not associated with any of these four outcomes (Stolz et al., 2017) [65]. Whilst this study was rated as good quality methodologically, there was a clear issue of generalisability in that those sampled were community-dwelling care-dependent adults over 50 years of age, defined by having a physical or mental disability that was expected to last at least 6 months. In not being defined by a life-limiting illness, their attitudes to EAS were elicited in a situation in which many would not be considering EAS. Additionally, EAS was illegal in Austria at that time.

Focussing on the ten studies in the studies rated at medium risk of bias, in a US study of patients with multiple sclerosis in the states of Oregon (where EAS was legal) and Michigan (where EAS was illegal), poor social support was negatively significantly associated with having ever thought about assisted suicide but there was no evidence to support an association with social isolation (Berkman et al., 1999) [67]. However, in a US-wide study of patients with multiple sclerosis, there was no association between perceived social support and attitudes to EAS Marrie et al. (2017) [75]. In a study of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in Canada, the US, and the UK (in the context of EAS being legal in Canada and two US states) there was a significant negative correlation between availability of social support and whether patients were contemplating EAS (Achille & Ogloff, 2004) [68]). However, a German study of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis found no association between perceived social support and attitudes to EAS (Lulé et al., 2014) [74], and a US study sampling patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in Oregon and Washington found no significant differences in social support between patients who would and would not consider EAS (Ganzini et al., 1998) [72]. In both studies EAS was legal for those sampled. In a US-wide study of patients with terminal illness no association was found between social support and whether patients had discussed EAS or hoarded drugs (Emanuel et al. (2000) [13]. In a US study of patients in New York state with HIV, there was a significant association between two dimensions of social support and attitude to EAS (Breitbart et al. (1996) [71]. However, this had issues of generalisability because attitudes to death among HIV-infected patients sampled in the mid-1990s would have been conditioned by the public understanding of HIV prognosis at that time.

A number of studies in the medium risk of bias category sampled people who were not defined by life-limiting illness. This means that findings (all found no evidence to support an association) would not be generalisable to those with terminal illness. One Dutch study of older adults (not defined by life-limiting illness) found no association between loneliness and attitudes to EAS (Buiting et al., 2012) [63]. A US study sampling older adults in Indiana state (also not defined by life-limiting illness) found no association between loneliness or perceived social support and attitudes to EAS (Cicirelli, 1997) [64]. Similarly, a US study sampling older adults (with no apparent life-limiting illness) in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania states found no association found between social support and attitudes to EAS (Himchak, 1997) [73].

Together these studies did not provide good evidence to support an association between social connectedness and attitudes to EAS given issues of generalisability, methodology, and the general issue of the validity of attitude measurement as a proxy for EAS probability.

Our GRADE rating denoted very low certainty of this evidence for the outcome of attitudes to EAS.

Association between social connectedness measures and desire for hastened death (n = 14)

Overall, 14 studies investigated associations between social connectedness and DHD, of which six were rated as having a low risk of bias, four at a medium risk of bias, and four at a high risk of bias.

Most of the six studies rated at low risk of bias related to patients with advanced cancer. In an Australian study of patients with terminal cancer, the three dimensions of social support investigated (family cohesion; number of social supports, satisfaction with social supports) were associated with DHD (Kelly et al., 2003) [80]. However, in three US studies of patients with terminal cancer in New York state there was no evidence to support a significant association between perceived social support and DHD (Breitbart et al., 2000) [22] and no association found between social support and DHD (Rosenfeld et al., 2000) [83] (Rosenfeld et al., 2014) [85]. Similarly, in a Canadian study of patients with metastatic cancer, social support was not associated with DHD (Rodin et al. (2007) [82]). Finally, in a US study sampling patients with advanced AIDS in New York State, social support was not associated with DHD (Rosenfeld et al. (2006) [84]. Note that of these studies, EAS was legal only in Canada.

Of the four studies rated at medium risk of bias, two were US analyses of the same sample of patients with terminal cancer in New York State, which presented weak evidence to support an association between poor social support and DHD (O’Mahony et al., 2005) [23] (O’Mahony et al., 2010) [81], and weak evidence to support an association between living alone and DHD (O’Mahony et al., 2005) [23]. The other two studies in this category reported no significant association. A German study of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis found no association between perceived social support and DHD (Lulé et al. (2014) [74]. In a Canadian study of patients with terminal illness in hospital palliative care units there was no association between perceived social support and DHD (Chochinov et al., 1995) [79]. Of these studies, EAS was legal only in Germany and Canada.

Together these studies, did not provide good evidence to support an association between social connectedness and DHD given contradictory findings and issues of methodology. DHD is also a poor proxy for EAS probability, with issues over comparability of measurement in areas where EAS is and is not legal.

Our GRADE rating denoted moderate certainty of this evidence for the outcome of DHD.

Discussion

Main findings

Our review identified a body of literature that investigated the associations between a broad range of social connectedness measures and those capturing actual or requested EAS (our main research question), as well as those more distally related to it (attitudes to EAS; DHD). Generally, there was no evidence to support an association between different constructs of social connectedness and requested or actual EAS, and very little evidence to support an association with attitudes to EAS or an association with DHD. The quality of studies was poor, with 62% rated as medium/high risk of bias, with GRADE ratings indicating that the certainty of recommendations varied from very low to moderate. No studies related specifically to psychiatric euthanasia, which is striking given the high prevalence of loneliness in such cases [13]. No studies related to EAS in the context of intellectual disability and/or autism, in which the prevalence of loneliness is also high [97]. It is possible that the nature of any associations between social connectedness and EAS in the context of severe psychiatric disorder, intellectual disability and/or autism will differ from those in the context of terminal physical illness.

Comparing our findings to a previous systematic review focussed on older adults [46], both their review and ours concluded that there was no or little evidence to support an association between loneliness or low satisfaction with family relationships with request for or attitudes to EAS. In our review, hopelessness and depression were risk factors supported by more consistent evidence for an association with DHD and attitudes and EAS, even though this was not an inclusion criterion. The seven studies rated at low risk of bias in this review (albeit all cross-sectional) identified hopelessness and/or depression to be associated with DHD [22, 80, 82,83,84], or with attitudes to EAS [75], apart from one, which found no association of depressed affect with positive attitudes to EAS [65].

Strengths and limitations

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of published studies describing the association between social connectedness and measures relating to EAS across all age groups, using a broad range of concepts of social connectedness and EAS-related outcomes. Data extraction was conducted and reviewed independently by four authors, achieving a high level of rigor in distilling key findings and characteristics. Use of the GRADE framework to evaluate the strength of evidence for each outcome added to the robustness of our conclusions. Clear sub-categorisation was used to address substantial heterogeneity across exposure/outcome measures. We used an accepted quality appraisal tool, the (QATSO) [49], to delineate the limitations of the current evidence base. Our synthesis of findings focussed on higher quality studies, so that conclusions were based on those with lower risk of bias. We acknowledged that participants who had requested EAS (rather than enacted EAS) may not be representative of those who die by EAS, and that DHD may not correlate well with enacted EAS, which is why these outcomes were grouped separately.

The main limitation of our review is that the majority of studies included in the review had methodological limitations, mainly due to unvalidated exposure/outcome measures, cross-sectional design, unadjusted analyses, and multiple testing. Some studies sampled populations without a life-limiting illness, or in countries where EAS was illegal, or included relatives’ views. None of the longitudinal studies had sufficient statistical power to analyse fatal outcomes, and any fatal outcomes were included within combined measures of requests (enacted and non-enacted) for EAS. However, conducting larger longitudinal studies may not add much to knowledge given the difficulties of following up patients who had made EAS requests longitudinally. Finally, our strategy did not include identification of grey literature, and there also remains the possibility of publication bias in under-representing unpublished studies reporting no statistically significant associations [98].

Clinical, policy and research implications

The lack of evidence to support an association between social connectedness and requested/actual EAS and related measures suggests that other factors may dominate end-of-life decision-making processes. Patients who seek EAS experience intolerable suffering that cannot be relieved. Addressing potentially modifiable factors such as loneliness and poor perceived social support would improve quality of life, as would addressing depression and hopelessness (which are clinical factors likely to make a more substantial contribution to requests for EAS). Given the contribution of loneliness to depression in older people [99] and the bidirectional association between social disconnectedness and poor mental health [100, 101], loneliness and depression are likely to be closely interlinked. Whilst depression (and hopelessness, as a symptom of depression) are modifiable using evidence-based treatments, loneliness is also potentially modifiable, whether in general population samples [102] or among those with pre-existing mental illness [103]. This is a growing research field, with great interest in the development and evaluation of interventions to address loneliness [102,103,104]. Intervening in this way might be one means of preventing the onset of depression that might otherwise lead to DHD and/or EAS.

The reasons given by patients for requesting EAS, including perceived poor quality of life and fear of future suffering, might be allayed by Advance Care Planning; a process for discussing their preferences and priorities for their future care, including situations in which they might refuse treatment (or request EAS, where legal). In the context of serious physical illness Advance Care Planning should start by checking mental capacity and follow local clinical guidelines [105]. In the context of psychiatric disorder, Advance Care Planning can include discussions about psychiatric admission, use of electroconvulsive therapy, and refusal of treatment, but there is a comparative lack of clinical guidelines to inform this process [106]. Family involvement is very important in this process [107], but for patients who feel less socially connected this may be problematic.

Given limited support for an association between social connectedness and EAS, the rationale for inquiring about social connectedness in patient populations who might consider EAS is therefore that intervening is likely to improve quality of life. Clinical guidance on the assessment and management of patients with terminal illness, severe physical disability and severe or enduring mental distress, including for those who request EAS, should therefore include inquiring about loneliness, isolation and social contacts alongside standard questions about pain and untreated mental or physical health problems. Information on social connectedness would provide valuable opportunities for clinical and voluntary services serving such populations to consider what support might be indicated to reduce distress.

In view of the methodological limitations of many included studies, we recommend that future research studies employ representative sampling and use of validated measures and appropriate statistical models. We also acknowledge the limited applicability of existing theoretical models of suicide to the phenomenon of EAS and note the need for a conceptual review to inform appropriate iterations of such models.

Conclusions

This review found no evidence to support an association between social connectedness and requested/actual EAS, and weak evidence to support an association between social connectedness and related measures (attitudes to EAS; desire for hastened death). The strength of the evidence was generally low, mainly due to high risk of bias, and there is a need for further high-quality research investigating these associations. Nevertheless, modifying any distressing aspects of poor social connectedness could improve quality of life in those who experience intolerable suffering due to physical or mental illness that cannot be relieved. The evidence base for interventions to address loneliness and social isolation is growing, and more work is needed to develop and evaluate effective interventions to target these in a range of settings, including end-of-life care.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. Full citations are provided for all included studies.

References

  1. S. A. Hurst and A. Mauron, “Assisted suicide and euthanasia in Switzerland: Allowing a role for non-physicians,” British Medical Journal. 2003;326(7383). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7383.271.

  2. J. Wise, “Netherlands, first country to legalize euthanasia,” Bulletin of the World Health Organisation , 2001. 79 (‎6)‎, 580. World Health Organization.https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/268351.

  3. E. J. Emanuel, B. D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, J. W. Urwin, and J. Cohen, “Attitudes and practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe,” JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association. 2016, 316(1). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.8499.

  4. K. Bhui and G. S. Malhi, “Proposed Assisted Dying Bill: implications for mental healthcare and psychiatrists,” British Journal of Psychiatry. 2022;221. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2022.41.

  5. R. Hurley, T. Richards, and F. Godlee, “Assisted dying: A question of when, not if,” BMJ. 2021;374. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2128.

  6. J. Romain and G. Carey, “There is nothing holy about agony: Religious people and leaders support assisted dying too,” BMJ. 2021;374. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2094.

  7. C. for H. S. Public Health Division, “Oregon Death with Dignity Act: 2021 data summary,” 2022. Available: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEARCH/DEATHWITHDIGNITYACT/Documents/year24.pdf

  8. N. Steck, M. Egger, M. Maessen, T. Reisch, and M. Zwahlen, “Euthanasia and assisted suicide in selected european countries and US states: Systematic literature review,” Med Care. 2013;51(10). https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182a0f427.

  9. S. Dierickx, L. Deliens, J. Cohen, and K. Chambaere, “Euthanasia in Belgium: Trends in reported cases between 2003 and 2013,” CMAJ. 2016;188(16). https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.160202.

  10. M. Maessen, J. H. Veldink, L. H. van den Berg, H. J. Schouten, G. van der Wal, and B. D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, “Requests for euthanasia: Origin of suffering in ALS, heart failure, and cancer patients,” J Neurol. 2010;257(7). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-010-5474-y.

  11. M. C. Snijdewind, D. L. Willems, L. Deliens, B. D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, and K. Chambaere, “A study of the first year of the end-of-life clinic for physician-assisted dying in the Netherlands,” JAMA Intern Med. 2015,175(10). https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.3978.

  12. M. E. Nicolini, C. Gastmans, and S. Y. H. Kim, “Psychiatric euthanasia, suicide and the role of gender,” British Journal of Psychiatry. 2022;220(1). https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2021.95.

  13. E. J. Emanuel, D. L. Fairclough, and L. L. Emanuel, “Attitudes and desires related to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide among terminally ill patients and their caregivers,” JAMA. 2000,284(19). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.19.2460.

  14. L. Mehlum et al., “Euthanasia and assisted suicide in patients with personality disorders: A review of current practice and challenges,” Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation. 2020;7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-020-00131-9.

  15. Doherty AM, Axe CJ, Jones DA. Investigating the relationship between euthanasia and/or assisted suicide and rates of non-assisted suicide: systematic review. BJPsych Open. 2022;8(4):e108. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2022.71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. O. Dyer, C. White, and A. G. Rada, “Assisted dying: Law and practice around the world,” BMJ (Online). 2015,351. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4481.

  17. K. Sleeman and G. Owen, “Assisted dying: we must prioritise research,” BMJ, vol. Blogs, 2021. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/09/08/assisted-dying-we-must-prioritise-research/. Accessed 5 Mar 2024.

  18. Jones D. Getting our definitions right in the debate over assisted suicide and euthanasia. BMJ. 2015;351:h4481. https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4481/rr-0. Accessed 15 Mar 2024.

  19. S. Frileux, C. Lelièvre, M. T. Muñoz Sastre, E. Mullet, and P. C. Sorum, “When is physician assisted suicide or euthanasia acceptable?,” J Med Ethics. 2003;29(6). https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.29.6.330.

  20. M. H. siao R. Hicks, “Physician-assisted suicide: a review of the literature concerning practical and clinical implications for UK doctors.” BMC family practice. 2006;7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-7-39.

  21. M. Hotopf, W. Lee, and A. Price, “Assisted suicide: Why psychiatrists should engage in the debate,” British Journal of Psychiatry. 2011;198(2). https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.110.083634.

  22. W. Breitbart et al.. “Depression, hopelessness, and desire for hastened death in terminally ill patients with cancer,” JAMA. 2000,284(22). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.22.2907.

  23. S. O’Mahony et al. “Desire for hastened death, cancer pain and depression: Report of a longitudinal observational study,” J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005,29(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2004.08.010.

  24. M. E. Gaignard and S. Hurst, “A qualitative study on existential suffering and assisted suicide in Switzerland,” BMC Med Ethics. 2019,20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0367-9.

  25. G. Bosshard, E. Ulrich, S. J. Ziegler, and W. Bar, “Assessment of requests for assisted suicide by a Swiss right-to-die society,” Death Stud. 2008,32(7). https://doi.org/10.1080/07481180802215692.

  26. B. Kelly, P. Burnett, D. Pelusi, S. Badger, F. Varghese, and M. Robertson, “Terminally ill cancer patients’ wish to hasten death,” Palliat Med. 2002,16(4). https://doi.org/10.1191/0269216302pm538oa.

  27. A. Nuhn, S. Holmes, M. Kelly, A. Just, J. Shaw, and E. Wiebe, “Experiences and perspectives of people who pursued medical assistance in dying: Qualitative study in Vancouver, BC,” Canadian Family Physician. 2018;64(9):e380-e386. https://www.cfp.ca/content/64/9/e380.long.

  28. R. C. O’Connor and O. J. Kirtley, “The integrated motivational-volitional model of suicidal behaviour,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 373, no. 1754. Royal Society Publishing. 2018;20170268. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0268.

  29. Chu C, et al. The Interpersonal Theory of Suicide: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of a Decade of Cross-National Research HHS Public Access. Psychol Bull. 2017;143(12):1313–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000123.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Perlman D, Peplau LA. Theoretical approaches to loneliness. In: Peplau LA, Perlman D, editors. Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy. New York: Wiley-Interscience; 1982. p. 123–34.

    Google Scholar 

  31. K. A. van Orden, K. C. Cukrowicz, T. K. Witte, and T. E. Joiner, “Thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness: Construct validity and psychometric properties of the Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire,” Psychol Assess. 2012,24(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025358.

  32. S. Rashid, A. Kiani, K. Khorramdel, F. Gholami, and L. Senobar, “The Relationship between Interpersonal Psychological Theory of Suicide Constructs (Loneliness, Perceived Social Support, Thwarted Belongingness and Burdensomeness) and Suicidal Behavior among Iranian Students,” Health Education and Health Promotion (HEHP). 2016;4(2). https://hehp.modares.ac.ir/article-5-5037-en.pdf.

  33. J. Wang et al., “Social isolation in mental health: a conceptual and methodological review,” Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2017;52(12). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-017-1446-1.

  34. J. de Jong Gierveld, “A review of loneliness: Concept and definitions, determinants and consequences.” Reviews in Clinical Gerontology. 1998;8(1). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959259898008090.

  35. J. Wang, F. Mann, B. Lloyd-Evans, R. Ma, and S. Johnson, “Associations between loneliness and perceived social support and outcomes of mental health problems: A systematic review,” BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1736-5.

  36. M. Solmi et al. “Factors Associated With Loneliness: An Umbrella Review Of Observational Studies,” J Affect Disord. 2020;271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.075.

  37. C. Park et al. “The Effect of Loneliness on Distinct Health Outcomes: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis,” Psychiatry Research. 2020;294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113514.

  38. L. A. Rico-Uribe, F. F. Caballero, N. Martín-María, M. Cabello, J. L. Ayuso-Mateos, and M. Miret, “Association of loneliness with all-cause mortality: A meta-analysis,” PLoS One. 2018;13(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190033.

  39. R. J. Shaw et al., “Living alone, loneliness and lack of emotional support as predictors of suicide and self-harm: A nine-year follow up of the UK Biobank cohort,” J Affect Disord. 2021;279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.10.026.

  40. McClelland H, Evans JJ, Nowland R, Ferguson E, O’Connor RC. Loneliness as a predictor of suicidal ideation and behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. J Affect Disord. 2020;274:880–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.05.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. J. Holt-Lunstad and A. Steptoe, “Social isolation: An underappreciated determinant of physical health,” Current Opinion in Psychology. 2022;43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.07.012.

  42. Motillon-Toudic C, Walter M, Séguin M, Carrier J-D, Berrouiguet S, Lemey C. Social isolation and suicide risk: Literature review and perspectives. Eur Psychiatry. 2022;65(1):e65. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2022.2320.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. R. Calati et al., “Suicidal thoughts and behaviors and social isolation: A narrative review of the literature,” Journal of Affective Disorders. 2019;245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.11.022.

  44. D. Otten et al., “Does social support prevent suicidal ideation in women and men? Gender-sensitive analyses of an important protective factor within prospective community cohorts,” J Affect Disord. 2022;306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.03.031.

  45. J. R. Hanna et al., “‘There’s something about admitting that you are lonely’ – prevalence, impact and solutions to loneliness in terminal illness: An explanatory sequential multi-methods study,” Palliat Med. 2022;36(10). https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163221122269.

  46. D. A. Castelli Dransart et al., “A systematic review of older adults’ request for or attitude toward euthanasia or assisted-suicide,” Aging Ment Health. 2021;25(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2019.1697201.

  47. Page MJ, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ. 2021;372:2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. CRD, “Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare,” 2009. CRD, York, UK. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf.

  49. W. C. W. Wong, C. S. K. Cheung, and G. J. Hart, “Development of a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) of HIV prevalence in men having sex with men and associated risk behaviours,” Emerging Themes in Epidemiology. 2008;5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-7622-5-23.

  50. G. H. Guyatt et al., “GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations” BMJ. 2008;336(7650), https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad.

  51. M. H. Murad, R. A. Mustafa, H. J. Schünemann, S. Sultan, and N. Santesso, “Rating the certainty in evidence in the absence of a single estimate of effect,” Evid Based Med. 2017;22(3) https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2017-110668.

  52. K. A. Smith, E. R. Goy, T. A. Harvath, and L. Ganzini, “Quality of death and dying in patients who request physician-assisted death,” J Palliat Med. 2011, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2010.0425.

  53. C. D. M. Ruijs, G. van der Wal, A. J. F. M. Kerkhof, and B. D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, “Unbearable suffering and requests for euthanasia prospectively studied in end-of-life cancer patients in primary care,” BMC Palliat Care. 2014,13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-684X-13-62.

  54. K. D. M. Ruijs, B. D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, G. van der Wal, and A. J. Kerkhof, “Unbearability of suffering at the end of life: The development of a new measuring device, the SOS-V,” BMC Palliat Care. 2009;8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-684X-8-16.

  55. K. Virik and P. Glare, “Requests for euthanasia made to a tertiary referral teaching hospital in Sydney, Australia in the year 2000,” Supportive Care in Cancer. 2002, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-002-0344-5.

  56. M. C. Comby and M. Filbet, “The demand for euthanasia in palliative care units: A prospective study in seven units of the ‘Rhône-Alpes’ region,” Palliat Med. 2005, 19(8). https://doi.org/10.1191/0269216305pm1081oa.

  57. L. Ganzini, T. M. Beer, M. Brouns, M. Mori, and Y. C. Hsieh, “Interest in physician-assisted suicide among Oregon cancer patients,” Journal of Clinical Ethics. 2006, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2004.22.90140.8070.

  58. L. Ganzini, E. R. Goy, and S. K. Dobscha, “Why Oregon patients request assisted death: Family members’ views,” J Gen Intern Med. 2008, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0476-x.

  59. L. Ganzini, E. R. Goy, and S. K. Dobscha, “Oregonians’ reasons for requesting physician aid in dying,” Arch Intern Med. 2009, 169(5). https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2008.579.

  60. K. A. Smith, T. A. Harvath, E. R. Goy, and L. Ganzini, “Predictors of pursuit of physician-assisted death,” J Pain Symptom Manage. 2015, 49(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.06.010.

  61. K. G. Wilson et al., “Desire for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide in palliative cancer care,” Health Psychology. 2007, 26(3). https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.26.3.314.

  62. T. A. Schroepfer, “Social relationships and their role in the consideration to Hasten death,” Gerontologist. 2008, 48(5). https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/48.5.612.

  63. H. M. Buiting et al. “Older peoples’ attitudes towards euthanasia and an end-of-life pill in the Netherlands: 2001–2009,” J Med Ethics. 2012;38(5). https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100066.

  64. V. G. Cicirelli, “Relationship of psychosocial and background variables to older adults’ end-of-life decisions,” Psychol Aging. 1997, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1037//0882-7974.12.1.72.

  65. E. Stolz, H. Mayerl, P. Gasser-Steiner, and W. Freidl, “Attitudes towards assisted suicide and euthanasia among care-dependent older adults (50+) in Austria: the role of socio-demographics, religiosity, physical illness, psychological distress, and social isolation,” BMC Med Ethics. 2017, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0233-6.

  66. L. Seidlitz, P. R. Duberstein, C. Cox, and Y. Conwell, “Attitudes of Older People Toward Suicide and Assisted Suicide: An Analysis of Gallup Poll Findings,” J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995;43(9). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1995.tb05563.x.

  67. C. S. Berkman, P. F. Cavallo, W. C. Chesnut, and N. J. Holland, “Attitudes toward physician-assisted suicide among persons with multiple sclerosis,” J Palliat Med. 1999,2(1) https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.1999.2.51.

  68. M. A. Achille and J. R. P. Ogloff, “Attitudes Toward and Desire for Assisted Suicide among Persons with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis,” Omega (United States). 2004, 48(1). https://doi.org/10.2190/G5TA-9KV0-MT3G-RWM0.

  69. E. M. Arnold, “Factors that influence consideration of hastening death among people with life-threatening illnesses,” Health and Social Work. 2004;29(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/29.1.17.

  70. K. Blank, J. Robison, E. Doherty, H. Prigerson, J. Duffy, and H. I. Schwartz, “Life-sustaining treatment and assisted death choices in depressed older patients,” J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001, 49(2). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.49036.x.

  71. W. Breitbart, B. D. Rosenfeld, and S. D. Passik, “Interest in physician-assisted suicide among ambulatory HIV-infected patients,” American Journal of Psychiatry. 1996, 153(2). https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.153.2.238.

  72. L. Ganzini, W. S. Johnston, B. H. McFarland, S. W. Tolle, and M. A. Lee, “Attitudes of Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Their Care Givers toward Assisted Suicide,” New England Journal of Medicine. 1998, 339(14). https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199810013391406.

  73. M. v. Himchak, “Contributing factors that influence the elderly in their attitudes toward euthanasia,” J Relig Gerontol. 1997, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1300/J078V10N02_04.

  74. D. Lulé et al., “Live and let die: Existential decision processes in a fatal disease,” J Neurol. 2014, 261(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-013-7229-z.

  75. R. A. Marrie, A. Salter, T. Tyry, G. R. Cutter, S. Cofield, and R. J. Fox, “High hypothetical interest in physician-assisted death in multiple sclerosis,” Neurology. 2017,88(16). https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000003831.

  76. J. Pacheco, P. J. Hershberger, R. J. Markert, and G. Kumar, “A longitudinal study of attitudes toward physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia among patients with noncurable malignancy,” American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. 2003, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/104990910302000207.

  77. R. Stutzki et al., “Attitudes towards hastened death in ALS: A prospective study of patients and family caregivers,” Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2014;15(1-2): 68-76 . https://doi.org/10.3109/21678421.2013.837928.

  78. G. Cheung, A. Martinez-Ruiz, R. Knell, A. O’callaghan, and D. M. Guthrie, “Factors Associated With Terminally Ill People Who Want to Die,” J Pain Symptom Manage, 2020, 60(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.04.003.

  79. H. M. Chochinov et al. “Desire for death in the terminally ill,” American Journal of Psychiatry. 1995, 152(8). https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.152.8.1185.

  80. B. Kelly, P. Brunett, D. Pelusi, S. Badger, F. Varghese, and M. Robertson, “Factors associated with the wish to hasten death: A study of patients with terminal illness,” Psychol Med. 2003, 33(1). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291702006827.

  81. S. O’Mahony, J. L. Goulet, and R. Payne, “Psychosocial distress in patients treated for cancer pain: A prospective observational study,” J Opioid Manag. 2010, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.5055/jom.2010.0019.

  82. G. Rodin et al., “The contribution of attachment security and social support to depressive symptoms in patients with metastatic cancer,” Psychooncology. 2007, 16(12). https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1186.

  83. B. Rosenfeld et al., “The schedule of attitudes toward hastened death: Measuring desire for death in terminally III cancer patients,” Cancer. 2000, 88(12). https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20000615)88:12<2868::AID-CNCR30>3.0.CO;2-K.

  84. B. Rosenfeld et al., “Desire for hastened death among patients with advanced AIDS,” Psychosomatics 2006, 47(6). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psy.47.6.504.

  85. B. Rosenfeld et al., “Does desire for hastened death change in terminally ill cancer patients?,” Soc Sci Med. 2014, 111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.027.

  86. I. G. Sarason, B. R. Sarason, E. N. Shearin, and G. R. Pierce, “A brief measure of social support: Practical and theoretical implications,” J Soc Pers Relat. 1987,4(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407587044007.

  87. T. C. Antonucci and H. Akiyama, “Social networks in adult life and a preliminary examination of the convoy model,” Journals of Gerontology. 1987,42(5). https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/42.5.519.

  88. W. E. Broadhead, S. H. Gehlbach, F. v. de Gruy, and B. H. Kaplan, “The Duke-UNC functional social support questionnaire: Measurement of social support in family medicine patients,” Med Care. 1988,26(7). https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198807000-00006.

  89. C. D. Sherbourne and A. L. Stewart, “The MOS social support survey.” SocSci Med. 1991,32(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(91)90150-B.

  90. B. Edwards and V. Clarke, “The validity of the family relationships index as a screening tool for psychological risk in families of cancer patients,” Psychooncology. 2005,14(7). https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.876.

  91. C. S. Carver, M. F. Scheier, and K. J. Weintraub, “Assessing Coping Strategies: A Theoretically Based Approach,” J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989,56(2). https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267.

  92. G. D. Zimet, N. W. Dahlem, S. G. Zimet, and G. K. Farley, “The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support,” J Pers Assess. 1988,52(1). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2.

  93. J. de Jong-Gierveld and F. Kamphuls, “The Development of a Rasch-Type Loneliness Scale,” Appl Psychol Meas. 1985;9(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168500900307.

  94. D. W. Russell, “UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure,” J Pers Assess. 1996,66(1). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2.

  95. L. Downey, J. R. Curtis, W. E. Lafferty, J. R. Herting, and R. A. Engelberg, “The Quality of Dying and Death Questionnaire (QODD): Empirical Domains and Theoretical Perspectives,” J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010,39(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.05.012.

  96. M. Bellido-Pérez, C. Monforte-Royo, J. Tomás-Sábado, J. Porta-Sales, and A. Balaguer, “Assessment of the wish to hasten death in patients with advanced disease: A systematic review of measurement instruments,” Palliative Medicine. 2017;31(6). https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216316669867.

  97. I. Tuffrey-Wijne, L. Curfs, S. Hollins, and I. Finlay, “Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorders: investigation of 39 Dutch case reports (2012–2021),” BJPsych Open. 2023, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2023.69.

  98. J. E. Dalton, S. D. Bolen, and E. J. Mascha, “Publication Bias: The Elephant in the Review,” Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2016;123(4). https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000001596.

  99. S. L. Lee et al. “The association between loneliness and depressive symptoms among adults aged 50 years and older: a 12-year population-based cohort study,” Lancet Psychiatry. 2021;8(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30383-7.

  100. Z. I. Santini et al. “Social disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and symptoms of depression and anxiety among older Americans (NSHAP): a longitudinal mediation analysis,” Lancet Public Health. 2020, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30230-0.

  101. J. Nuyen, M. Tuithof, R. de Graaf, S. van Dorsselaer, M. Kleinjan, and M. ten Have, “The bidirectional relationship between loneliness and common mental disorders in adults: findings from a longitudinal population-based cohort study,” Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2020, 55(10). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-019-01778-8.

  102. C. M. Masi, H.-Y. Chen, L. C. Hawkley, and J. T. Cacioppo, “A Meta-Analysis of Interventions to Reduce Loneliness,” Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2011, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310377394.

  103. F. Mann et al., “A life less lonely: the state of the art in interventions to reduce loneliness in people with mental health problems,” Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2017;52(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-017-1392-y.

  104. Hsueh Y-C, et al. A Systematic Review of Studies Describing the Effectiveness, Acceptability, and Potential Harms of Place-Based Interventions to Address Loneliness and Mental Health Problems. IJERPH. 2022;19(8):4766.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. NHSE (NHS England), “Universal Principles for Advance Care Planning (ACP),” London, 2022. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/universal-principles-for-advance-care-planning.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2024.

  106. R. Nowland et al., “Management of patients with an advance decision and suicidal behaviour: A systematic review,” BMJ Open. 2019, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023978.

  107. I. J. Van Eechoud et al., “Perspectives of family members on planning end-of-life care for terminally ill and frail older people,” J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014, 47(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.06.007.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

All authors are members of the Loneliness and Social Isolation in Mental Health Research Network, established with a UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) network grant from 2018 to 2023 and funded since then by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). AP is the joint network lead and received salary support for this project from UKRI (grant reference: ES/S004440/1). AP and NA are funded by the NIHR UCLH BRC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UCL Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK

    Emma Corcoran, Molly Bird, Nafiso Ahmed & Alexandra Pitman

  2. Oxford Centre for Psychological Health, Oxford, UK

    Emma Corcoran

  3. North East London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    Emma Corcoran

  4. South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    Molly Bird

  5. Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, West Sussex, UK

    Rachel Batchelor

  6. The Oxford Institute of Clinical Psychology Training and Research, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Rachel Batchelor

  7. Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxfordshire, UK

    Rachel Batchelor

  8. School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK

    Rebecca Nowland

  9. Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    Alexandra Pitman

Authors
  1. Emma Corcoran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Molly Bird
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rachel Batchelor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nafiso Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rebecca Nowland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alexandra Pitman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

EC, RN, and AP developed the idea for the study. EC conducted searches. EC and MB conducted screening of citations and data extraction, with independent checks by RB and AP. EC, MB, RB, and AP conducted independent quality appraisal. NA and AP conducted the GRADE rating and the PRISMA checklists. EC and AP wrote the initial draft. All authors commented on subsequent drafts.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Pitman.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable. Ethical approval was not required as all data were published studies.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare 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

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

Corcoran, E., Bird, M., Batchelor, R. et al. The association between social connectedness and euthanasia and assisted suicide and related constructs: systematic review. BMC Public Health 24, 1057 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18528-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18528-4

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us