Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34282042›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical ethics2022

Initiating technology dependence to sustain a child's life: a systematic review of reasons.

Denise Alexander, Mary Brigid Quirke, Jay Berry, Jessica Eustace-Cook, Piet Leroy, Kate Masterson, Martina Healy, Maria Brenner

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

Denise AlexanderSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-6103-4146
Mary Brigid QuirkeSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Jay BerryDivision of General Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jessica Eustace-CookThe Library of Trinity College Dublin, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Piet LeroyPediatric Intensive Care Unit & Pediatric Procedural Sedation Unit, Maastricht UMC+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Kate MastersonSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Martina HealyPaediatric Intensive Care, Our Lady's Hospital Crumlin, Crumlin, Ireland.
Maria BrennerSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland brennerm@tcd.ie.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecision-making in initiating life-sustaining health technology is complex and often conducted at time-critical junctures in clinical care. Many of these decisions have profound, often irreversible, consequences for the child and family, as well as potential benefits for functioning, health and quality of life. Yet little is known about what influences these decisions. A systematic review of reasoning identified the range of reasons clinicians give in the literature when initiating technology dependence in a child, and as a result helps determine the range of influences on these decisions.

methodsMedline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science, ASSIA and Global Health Library databases were searched to identify all reasons given for the initiation of technology dependence in a child. Each reason was coded as a broad and narrow reason type, and whether it supported or rejected technology dependence.

results53 relevant papers were retained from 1604 publications, containing 116 broad reason types and 383 narrow reason types. These were grouped into broad thematic categories: clinical factors, quality of life factors, moral imperatives and duty and personal values; and whether they supported, rejected or described the initiation of technology dependence. The majority were conceptual or discussion papers, less than a third were empirical studies. Most discussed neonates and focused on end-of-life care.

conclusionsThere is a lack of empirical studies on this topic, scant knowledge about the experience of older children and their families in particular; and little written on choices made outside 'end-of-life' care. This review provides a sound basis for empirical research into the important influences on a child's potential technology dependence.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeTerminal CareAdolescentChildFamilyHumansInfant, NewbornTechnologyapplied and professional ethicschildrendecision-makingquality/value of life/personhoodtechnology/risk assessment

Identifiers

PMID34282042
PMCPMC9726963

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.