Attitudes of Parents and Health Care Professionals Toward Active Treatment of Extremely Premature Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the attitudes of neonatologists, neonatal nurses, the parents of extremely low birth weight (ELBW) children, and the parents of normal birth weight children toward saving infants of borderline viability and who should be involved in the decision-making process and to compare physicians' and nurses' estimates of the proportion of infants who are born at various gestational ages with regard to survival, morbidity, and treatment. METHODS: A questionnaire was given to 169 parents of ELBW children and 123 parents of term children, who were part of a longitudinal study of the outcome of ELBW infants. A similar questionnaire was completed by 98 Canadian neonatologists and 99 neonatal nurses. RESULTS: Physicians tended to be more optimistic than nurses regarding the probability of survival and freedom from serious disabilities and would recommend to parents life-saving interventions for their child at earlier gestational ages. A significant majority of parents believed that attempts should be made to save all infants, irrespective of condition or weight at birth, compared with only 6% of health professionals who endorsed this. In contrast to parents, health professionals believed that economic costs to society should be a factor in deciding whether to save an ELBW infant. However, health professionals did not believe that the economic status of the parents should be a factor, although the stress of raising an infant with disabilities should be. Most respondents believed that the parents and physicians should make the final decision but that other bodies, such as ethics committees or the courts, should not. CONCLUSION: Health care professionals must recognize that their attitudes toward saving ELBW infants differ from those of parents. Parents, whether of term or extremely premature children, are more in favor of intervening to save the infant irrespective of its weight or condition at birth than are professionals. It therefore is imperative that there be joint decision making, combining the knowledge of the physician with the wishes of the parents.
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 | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".