ArticleBMC palliative care2023
A shared decision-making model in pediatric palliative care: a qualitative study of healthcare providers.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Telling is Caring: Prioritizing the Best Interests of Dying Children.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2026Article
- Healthcare provider's perceptions of family values when making end-of-life care decisions for their children: developing and implementing a survey tool.Palliative care and social practice · 2026Article
- Decision Making in Pediatric Heart Failure and Transplant: A Qualitative Analysis of Parental Decision Making.Pediatric transplantation · 2025Article
- Insights of shared decision-making and personalized treatment in orthopedics - A qualitative systematic review.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- Correction: A shared decision-making model in pediatric palliative care: a qualitative study of healthcare providers.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPediatric shared decision-making (SDM) is a fundamental part of family-centered care. Pediatric palliative care (PPC) is one of the more difficult fields for healthcare providers when choosing to utilize SDM. However, to our knowledge, there are still few structured approaches of SDM in PPC. We aimed to build a model of SDM in PPC that achieves better care and outcomes for children and their family members.
methodsThis study is a descriptive phenomenology study. Participants included physicians, nurses, and social workers in the PPC team. Participants were individually interviewed face-to-face or via an online meeting software. Data were collected in semi-structured interviews and analyzed using a thematic framework analysis.
resultsIn total, 27 healthcare providers were interviewed. The model of SDM in PPC identified three themes, including the participants, the principle and the process of SDM. Decision participants involved the children, parents, the PPC team and others. The decision principle had three sub-themes including type, standard and precondition. The decision process describes the fundamental process of SDM and provides suggestions for mobilizing patients and parents to engage in decision-making and seeking conflict resolution.
conclusionsThis is the first study to develop a SDM model in PPC. This model can provide guidance to PPC teams on SDM practices. In addition, the model contributes to the existing body of knowledge by providing a conceptual model for SDM in the context of PPC.
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.