Doctors’ and nurses’ attitudes towards neonatal ethical decision making in Ireland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical staff attitudes towards ethical decision making in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in Ireland, to establish differences between doctors and nurses and to compare attitudes in Ireland with those in Europe. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study by means of an anonymous questionnaire. 64 doctors and 228 nurses in seven NICUs participated (response rates 74% and 81%, respectively). Through factor analysis the staff answers to 12 attitude statements were used to build a score whose range varied from 0 (preservation of life in any case) to 10, indicating a more individualised approach according to the patient's best interests. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Staff attitudes to ethical decision making in NICU. RESULTS: Mean values of attitude scores were 5.8 (95% CI 5.3 to 6.2) for doctors, and 6.0 (95% CI 5.5 to 6.5) for nurses. Respondents with experience in follow-up of NICU graduates had significantly higher scores (6.7 vs 5.4, p = 0.018), while the opposite was true among more religious staff (5.8 vs 6.9, p = 0.026) and particularly for minority religions such as Muslim (4.1, 95% CI 3.1 to 5.2). Scores were higher after age 30 for nurses, and after age 40 for doctors, suggesting the adoption of a less vitalistic viewpoint as respondents grow older and more experienced. Among doctors, a relationship was found between the attitude score and their self-reported non-treatment practices. CONCLUSIONS: In Ireland, NICU doctors and nurses hold similar attitudes towards ethical decision making. Personal and professional factors have a statistically significant impact on attitude score. Compared with the rest of Europe, attitudes in Ireland appear more similar to those of southern rather than northern European countries.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".