Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34130892›Full record

ArticlePatient education and counseling2022

Assessment of parent understanding in conferences for critically ill neonates.

Mary C Barks, Emma A Schindler, Peter A Ubel, Megan G Jiao, Kathryn I Pollak, Hanna E Huffstetler, Monica E Lemmon

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Patient education and counseling, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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.

Mary C BarksDuke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: mary.barks@duke.edu.
Emma A SchindlerDuke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Peter A UbelDuke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Megan G JiaoDuke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Kathryn I PollakDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA; Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Hanna E HuffstetlerDuke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Monica E LemmonDuke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

Decision Making for Infants with Neurologic ConditionsK23NS116453 · NINDS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LEMMON, MONICA · 2020 to 2024
$942k
NINDS NIH HHS K23 NS116453
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to characterize the use and impact of assessments of understanding in parent-clinician communication for critically ill infants.

methodsWe enrolled parents and clinicians participating in family conferences for infants with neurologic conditions. Family conferences were audio recorded as they occurred. We used a directed content analysis approach to identify clinician assessments of understanding and parent responses to those assessments. Assessments were classified based on an adapted framework; responses were characterized as "absent," "yes/no," or "elaborated."

resultsFifty conferences involving the care of 25 infants were analyzed; these contained 374 distinct assessments of understanding. Most (n = 209/374, 56%) assessments were partial (i.e. okay?); a minority (n = 60/374, 16%) were open-ended. When clinicians asked open-ended questions, parents elaborated in their answers most of the time (n = 55/60, 92%). Approximately three-quarter of partial assessments yielded no verbal response from parents. No conferences included a teach-back.

conclusionsAlthough common, most clinician assessments of understanding were partial or close-ended and rarely resulted in elaborated responses from parents. Open-ended assessments are an effective, underutilized strategy to increase parent engagement and clinician awareness of information needs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians hoping to facilitate parent engagement and question-asking should rely on open-ended statements to assess understanding.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessProfessional-Family RelationsCommunicationHumansInfantInfant, NewbornParentsClinician-patient communicationNeonate

Identifiers

PMID34130892
PMCPMC8664893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.