ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2023
Antenatal consultation and deliberation: adapting to parental preferences.
Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A rapid review of periviable (22 + 0 to 23 + 6 weeks) counselling practices and the need for a trauma-informed care approach.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- Supporting parents' emotional and mental health in the antenatal consultation.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Review
- Achieving Goals of Care Decisions in Chronic Critical Illness: A Multi-Institutional Qualitative Study.Chest · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze and compare perspectives on antenatal consultation and decision-making from participants with varying degrees of prematurity experience and clinician-experts. STUDY
designOpen-ended interviews structured around topics previously identified by recognized clinician-experts were conducted with participants having different levels of prematurity experience. Analysis used mixed methods (thematic and mental models analysis). Secondary sub-group comparisons were performed, based on degree of experience.
resultsNon-clinician participants' (n = 80) perspectives differed regarding: amount and content of information desired, decision-making strategies, and who - parent or clinician - should direct consultations. Most wanted to retain decisional authority, all recognized their emotional limitations and many advocated for deliberation support. Participants worried parents' would regret choosing palliative care contrary to clinicians. Bereaved parents often saw issues differently.
conclusionsParents approach risk and decision-making for extremely premature infants in a personal fashion. They need personalized support tailored to their unique circumstances, decision-making preferences, and emotions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36725985What 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.