Parental perspectives on end-of-life care in the pediatric intensive care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify priorities for quality end-of-life care from the parents' perspective. DESIGN: Anonymous, self-administered questionnaire. SETTING: Three pediatric intensive care units in Boston. PARTICIPANTS: Parents of children who had died after withdrawal of life support. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Parents' views of the adequacy of pain management, decision making, and social support during and after the death of their child were measured with the Parental Perspectives Questionnaire. Of 96 eligible households, 56 (58%) responded. In 90% of cases, physicians initiated discussion of withdrawal of life support, although nearly half of parents had considered it independently. Among decision-making factors, parents rated the quality of life, likelihood of improvement, and perception of their child's pain as most important. Twenty percent of parents disagreed that their children were comfortable in their final days. Fifty-five percent of parents felt that they had little to no control during their child's final days, and nearly a quarter reported that, if able, they would have made decisions differently. There were significant differences (p < .001) between the involvement of family, friends, and staff members at the time of death and greater agreement (p < .01) about the decision to withdraw support between parents and staff members than with other family members. CONCLUSIONS: Parents place the highest priorities on quality of life, likelihood of improvement, and perception of their child's pain when considering withdrawal of life support. Parents make such decisions and garner psychosocial support in the context of a social network that changes over time and includes healthcare professionals, family, and friends.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".