Construction of a Parent-Derived Questionnaire to Measure End-of-Life Care After Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to develop and pretest a questionnaire to assess the practice of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the NICU on the basis of the experiences of bereaved parents. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 11 parents whose infants had undergone withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the NICU at McMaster University Medical Centre to obtain their views on helpful practices. Interviews continued until no new items were obtained (ie, saturation point). A total of 370 items were distilled into 82 questionnaire statements on care by a multidisciplinary team and grouped for analysis into 6 domains: communication, quality of care, quality of life, shared decision-making, withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment process, and bereavement care. Respondents were asked to rank how frequently events occurred on a 7-point Likert scale anchored from 1 = never to 7 = always. A score of >5 was considered favorable. The questionnaire was distributed to a pretest sample of perinatal social workers who attended a bereavement workshop at an international conference. RESULTS: The response rate was 48%. Respondents ranked items that pertained to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment process highest, indicating that items were done well. Items related to quality of care and bereavement care ranked lowest. Other domains ranked as follows: communication, shared decision-making, and quality of life. Consistency of items within domains was tested by Cronbach's alpha and split-half testing and were >0.6 for most domains. CONCLUSIONS: Parents' views on important aspects of end-of-life care in the NICU were incorporated into a quality assurance questionnaire. Pretesting assessed the performance of the instrument and the perceptions of social workers on the effectiveness of end-of-life practices. Respondents identified that parents' practical needs were met during the withdrawal process but were not consistently met in regard to the quality of in-hospital and follow-up bereavement care.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".