Parental Perceptions of Forgoing Artificial Nutrition and Hydration During End-of-Life Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Forgoing artificial nutrition and hydration (FANH) in children at the end of life (EOL) is a medically, legally, and ethically acceptable practice under specific circumstances. However, most of the evidence on FANH involves dying adults. There is a paucity of pediatric evidence to guide health care providers' and parents' decision-making around this practice. Objectives were (1) to explore the experiences of bereaved parents when a decision had been made to FANH during EOL care for their child and (2) to describe the perceived quality of death in these children, as reported by their parents. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using in-depth interviews with parents whose children died after a decision to FANH. Parental perceptions about the experience and their child's quality of death were explored. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed, then data were analyzed by using interpretive description methodology. RESULTS: All parents were satisfied with their decision to FANH and believed that their child's death was generally peaceful and comfortable. The child's perceived poor quality of life was central to the decision to FANH, with feeding intolerance often contributing to this perception. Despite overall satisfaction, all parents had doubts and questions about the decision and benefited from ongoing assurances from the clinical team. CONCLUSIONS: FANH in children at the EOL is an acceptable form of palliation for some parents and may contribute to a death that is perceived to be peaceful and comfortable. In situations in which FANH may be a reasonable possibility, physicians should be prepared to introduce the option.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".