A Double‐Edged Sword: How Clinical Context Shapes Clinicians' Perceptions of Parental Religion in Paediatric Critical Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Critically ill children are often accompanied by parents expressing religious values. This study aimed to explore paediatric clinicians' perceptions of parental religious values in a diverse setting, to understand their influence on the caring relationship and decision-making for critically ill children. METHODS: A prospective qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews and ethnographic observations. Physicians and nurses from paediatric oncology, intensive care, and neonatal units in a quaternary care centre were recruited. Thematic content analysis was performed on transcribed interviews and observation notes. RESULTS: Data from 26 clinicians (14 physicians, 12 nurses) across 24 interviews and 131 observation hours revealed five themes. Religion was perceived positively as a family value and a legitimate aspect of end-of-life discussions. However, during parental refusals of medical plans, it was viewed as a groundless dimension for decision-making and a barrier to understanding illness severity. CONCLUSION: Paediatric clinicians have reported communication difficulties when parents' religious values are strongly held, particularly during patient admission and when parents refuse medical plans. Developing communication strategies that respect families' religious values has improved the quality of care and the relationship between clinicians and 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".