Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31783822›Full record

ArticleBMC pediatrics2019

The clinical practice guideline palliative care for children and other strategies to enhance shared decision-making in pediatric palliative care; pediatricians' critical reflections.

Dunja Dreesens, Lotte Veul, Jonne Westermann, Nicole Wijnands, Leontien Kremer, Trudy van der Weijden, Eduard Verhagen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pediatrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Breaking bad news: what parents would like you to know.Archives of disease in childhood · 2021
    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

7 authors.

Dunja DreesensDepartment of Family Medicine, Maastricht University/School CAPHRI, P.O. Box 6166200, MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands. dunja.dreesens@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-5039-3370
Lotte VeulGGD-regio Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Jonne WestermannGGzCentraal, Amersfoort, the Netherlands.
Nicole WijnandsMaastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Leontien KremerDepartment of Pediatrics, Emma Children's Hospital/Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Trudy van der WeijdenDepartment of Family Medicine, Maastricht University/School CAPHRI, P.O. Box 6166200, MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Eduard VerhagenUniversity of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBecause of practice variation and new developments in palliative pediatric care, the Dutch Association of Pediatrics decided to develop the clinical practice guideline (CPG) palliative care for children. With this guideline, the association also wanted to precipitate an attitude shift towards shared decision-making (SDM) and therefore integrated SDM in the CPG Palliative care for children. The aim was to gain insight if integrating SDM in CPGs can potentially encourage pediatricians to practice SDM. Its objectives were to explore pediatricians' attitudes and thoughts regarding (1) recommendations on SDM in CPGs in general and the guideline Palliative care for children specifically; (2) other SDM enhancing strategies or tools linked to CPGs.

methodsSemi-structured face-to-face interviews. Pediatricians (15) were recruited through purposive sampling in three university-based pediatric centers in the Netherlands. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, coded by at least two authors and analyzed with NVivo.

resultsSome pediatricians considered SDM a skill or attitude that cannot be addressed by clinical practice guidelines. According to others, however, clinical practice guidelines could enhance SDM. In case of the guideline Palliative care for children, the recommendations needed to focus more on how to practice SDM, and offer more detailed recommendations, preferring a recommendation stating multiple options. Most interviewed pediatricians felt that patient decisions aids were beneficial to patients, and could ensure that all topics relevant to the patient are covered, even topics the pediatrician might not consider him or herself, or deems less important. Regardless of the perceived benefit, some pediatricians preferred providing the information themselves instead of using a patient decision aid.

conclusionsFor clinical practice guidelines to potentially enhance SDM, guideline developers should avoid blanket recommendations in the case of preference sensitive choices, and SDM should not be limited to recommendations on non-treatment decisions. Furthermore, preference sensitive recommendations are preferably linked with patient decision aids.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDecision Making, SharedPalliative CarePediatriciansPractice Guidelines as TopicChildFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleNetherlandsPatient ParticipationChildrenClinical practice guidelineInterviewsPalliative careQualitativeShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID31783822
PMCPMC6883587

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.