ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Exploring Distinct Profiles in Paediatric Bioethics-An Analysis of Proactive and Reactive Approaches by Adults.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe field of paediatric bioethics addresses ethical issues in paediatric care, where parental authority often guides medical decisions, but children's preferences should also be considered. Promoting ethical awareness among minors can help them understand complex issues. This study aimed to analyse how sociodemographic, educational, and experiential factors shape adult perspectives on paediatric bioethical issues, particularly concerning pain and death.
methodsA questionnaire was developed to collect adult views of bioethical issues. The online questionnaire was disseminated via e-mail or WhatsApp. It started with an initial group of known individuals and then expanded hierarchically to include contacts of friends. Participants completed an online questionnaire, and data were analysed using SPSS version 22.0 for Windows. Clustering analysis identified two distinct groups.
resultsThis research focused on Italian adults (N = 889) aged 18 and over. Cluster 1, predominantly female (78.3%) and more highly educated (38.6% with postgraduate degrees), exhibited greater experience with paediatric bioethical issues (81.1%). This group favoured a collaborative approach, supporting shared training among adults (92.3%) and advocating for gradually addressing bioethical issues during childhood (84.3%). Cluster 2, with a higher proportion of males (31.5%) and parents (75.1%), showed lower educational levels (3.0% with middle school education) and less experience with bioethical concerns (93.5%). This group preferred a reactive, situation-specific approach to these issues.
conclusionsThis study showed two distinct adult profiles regarding how they approach paediatric bioethics. The first group adopts a preventive and collaborative strategy, while the second group is more reactive and situation-driven. These findings can guide the development of tailored educational programmes to improve discussions about sensitive topics such as pain, incurability, and death in paediatric care.
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.