ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Utilization and Evaluation of Ethics Consultation Services in Neonatal Intensive Care.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundThe opportunities of perinatal medicine have improved, but this has also been accompanied by increasing ethical challenges. Clinical ethics consultation services (CEC) could support medical teams facing these. However, nothing is currently known about the availability, utilization and evaluation of CEC in German neonatology units.
methodsThis study was designed as a national, descriptive, mixed quantitative-qualitative questionnaire study. The head physicians of the pediatric departments and the heads (medical and nursing) of the corresponding neonatal intensive care units of the 213 German perinatal centers were asked to participate.
resultsNinety percent of the respondents (responding rate 24.4-38.0%) stated that CEC are established and available. However, utilization is rather low [rarely N = 40 (54.1%), never N = 12, (16.2%), occasionally N = 19 (25.7%)], although it was rated as very helpful. There was a significant correlation between utilization and perceived general usefulness (r = 0.224,
conclusionsThe contradiction between the low utilization despite positive evaluations could be related to perceived hurdles. These and the different perceptions within the professional groups give rise to the consideration of whether alternative approaches, e.g., liaison services, would be preferable in neonatology.
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.