MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417296747 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxaf116.097

97 Parental experiences of decision-making in the grey zones of neonatal intensive care: An international multi-centre mixed methodology study

2025· article· en· W4417296747 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michelle Stoopler, Natalie Jewitt, Gillian Foo, Bianca Bartholomew, Rebecca Greenberg, Trisha Prentice, Gregory P. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisDistressIntensive careNeonatal intensive care unitQualitative researchQualitative property

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Sharing difficult decisions with parents in the NICU is complex. Grey zones can be defined as clinical scenarios where multiple morally acceptable decisions are possible. Moral distress within clinicians is well recognized in this space, yet little is known about parental moral experiences. Objectives This study sought to understand parental experiences of decision-making (DM) in the NICU and particularly whether moral schism and moral distress were experienced within four NICUs in Australia and Canada. Design/Methods This was a retrospective mixed-methodology phenomenological study. Parents of infants who were admitted to a NICU for at least 3 days between July 2018 and August 2022 and who engaged in complex conversations surrounding difficult care plan decisions were invited to complete a survey that illustrated their experiences of DM. Bereaved families were not contacted until at least 1 year following their child’s death. Demographic patient data was collected by chart review. Qualitative survey data was analyzed using thematic analysis, informed by the concepts of moral distress and moral schism. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data. Results 71 parents (80% mothers, 20% fathers) completed the survey. Thematic analysis (see table 1) revealed 5 main themes: (1) decision burdens, (2) internal tensions, (3) actualizing beliefs and values through DM, (4) inauthentic shared DM (SDM) and (5) external factors that shaped DM. Parents reported variable experiences of SDM. Despite DM commonly being described as burdensome, 89% wanted to be involved in SDM; 63% felt included. While parents valued actualization of their beliefs and values, views on who should be the ultimate decision-makers in complex, difficult care decisions varied significantly. Time pressures, frequency of DM, competing interests, and environmental factors positively and negatively added to the internal tensions experienced. Despite being framed as SDM, some parents felt coerced into decisions, consistent with moral distress. The inability to advocate for their child in alignment with their values was a source of regret for some. Conclusion DM in the grey zone can be burdensome. SDM dynamics are complex, reflecting the need for personalized DM. Clinicians need to be aware of various external and internal pressures and tensions experienced by parents. A nuanced approach may mitigate negative moral experiences in clinicians and families alike. Future research can include pursuing interviews with caregivers to better ascertain factors contributing to the experience of difficult DM in the NICU and further delineate a nuanced approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207