ArticleAcademic pediatrics
Refusal of Vitamin K by Parents of Newborns: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Academic pediatrics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccine and Nirsevimab Uptake Among Pregnant People and Their Neonates.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Review
- Neonatologists and vitamin K hesitancy.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2023Review
- Midwives' Perspectives about Vitamin K Prophylaxis Against Vitamin K Deficiency Bleeding of the Newborn.Maternal and child health journal · 2022Article
- Vitamin K shot in newborn babies: An unprecedented sequelae.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- Parental resistance to oral vitamin K prophylaxis was much more common in Swiss birthing centres than private or public hospitals.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2021Article
- Refusal of Intramuscular Vitamin K by Parents of Newborns: A Review.Hospital pediatrics · 2020Review
- Oral Vitamin K Prophylaxis in Newborns: A Survey of Clinician Opinions and Practices.Hospital pediatrics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDespite American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations, some parents refuse intramuscular (IM) vitamin K as prophylaxis against vitamin K deficiency bleeding for their newborns. The purpose of our study was to describe attitudes and perceptions of parents who choose to defer IM vitamin K for their newborns.
methodsUsing qualitative methodology, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with parents of newborns in 3 hospitals in Connecticut and California. We used the grounded theory approach and the constant comparative method until saturation was reached.
resultsNineteen participants (17 mothers and 2 fathers) of 17 newborns were interviewed; 14 newborns did not receive IM vitamin K due to refusal by the parents, and for 3 newborns IM vitamin K administration was delayed due to initial hesitation by the parents. Four major themes emerged: 1) risk-to-benefit ratio, where parents refused IM vitamin K due to a perceived risk to their newborn from preservatives, for example; 2) "natural" approaches, which led to seeking oral vitamin K or increasing the mother's own prenatal dietary vitamin K intake; 3) placement of trust and mistrust, which involved mistrust of the medical and pharmaceutical community with overlapping concerns about vaccines and trust of self, like-minded allopathic and non-allopathic health care providers, the social circle, the internet, and social media; and 4) informed by experiences, reflecting hospital experiences with prior pregnancies and communication with health care providers.
conclusionsParents' perception of risk, preference for alternative options, trust, and communication with health care providers were pivotal factors when making decisions about IM vitamin K.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.