Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30208902›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2018

Exploring the vagueness of Religion & Spirituality in complex pediatric decision-making: a qualitative study.

Alexandra K Superdock, Raymond C Barfield, Debra H Brandon, Sharron L Docherty

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Development of a checklist for evaluation of shared decision-making in consultation for extremely preterm delivery.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Crossroads of parental decision making: Intersections of hope, communication, relationships, and emotions.Journal of child health care : for professionals working with children in the hospital and community · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alexandra K SuperdockSchool of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. alexandra.superdock@chp.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8132-3511
Raymond C BarfieldDivision of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Duke University School of Medicine, 2 Chapel Drive, 0034 Westbrook, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
Debra H BrandonDepartment of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Nursing, 307 Trent Drive, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Sharron L DochertyDepartment of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Nursing, 307 Trent Drive, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.

Funding

Decision-making for Infants with Complex Life-Threatening ConditionsR01NR010548 · NINR · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI DOCHERTY, SHARRON L · 2008 to 2012
$2.0M
Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (US) R01NR010548NINR NIH HHS R01 NR010548
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical advances have led to new challenges in decision-making for parents of seriously ill children. Many parents say religion and spirituality (R&S) influence their decisions, but the mechanism and outcomes of this influence are unknown. Health care providers (HCPs) often feel unprepared to discuss R&S with parents or address conflicts between R&S beliefs and clinical recommendations. Our study sought to illuminate the influence of R&S on parental decision-making and explore how HCPs interact with parents for whom R&S are important.

methodsA longitudinal, qualitative, descriptive design was used to (1) identify R&S factors affecting parental decision-making, (2) observe changes in R&S themes over time, and (3) learn about HCP perspectives on parental R&S. The study sample included 16 cases featuring children with complex life-threatening conditions. The length of study for each case varied, ranging in duration from 8 to 531 days (median = 380, mean = 324, SD = 174). Data from each case included medical records and sets of interviews conducted at least monthly with mothers (n = 16), fathers (n = 12), and HCPs (n = 108). Thematic analysis was performed on 363 narrative interviews to identify R&S themes and content related to decision-making.

resultsParents from 13 cases reported R&S directly influenced decision-making. Most HCPs were unaware of this influence. Fifteen R&S themes appeared in parent and HCP transcripts. Themes most often associated with decision-making were Hope & Faith, God is in Control, Miracles, and Prayer. Despite instability in the child's condition, these themes remained consistently relevant across the trajectory of illness. R&S influenced decisions about treatment initiation, procedures, and life-sustaining therapy, but the variance in effect of R&S on parents' choices ultimately depended upon other medical & non-medical factors.

conclusionsParents consider R&S fundamental to decision-making, but apply R&S concepts in vague ways, suggesting R&S impact how decisions are made more than what decisions are made. Lack of clarity in parental expressions of R&S does not necessarily indicate insincerity or underestimation of the seriousness of the child's prognosis; R&S can be applied to decision-making in both functional and dysfunctional ways. We present three models of how religious and spiritual vagueness functions in parental decision-making and suggest clinical applications.

Indexed as

Decision MakingLife Support CarePalliative CareReligionSpiritualityChildCritical CareCritical IllnessFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleParentsPediatricsProfessional-Family RelationsWithholding TreatmentCommunicationCritical careHigh-risk newbornsLife-sustaining therapyMiraclesNeonatologyPediatric palliative carePrayerReligion and medicineWithdrawal and withholding of treatment

Identifiers

PMID30208902
PMCPMC6134505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.