Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41300603›Full record

ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Improving Intensive End-of-Life Care for Infants and Children: A Scoping Review of Intervention Elements.

Elizabeth G Broden Arciprete, Na Ouyang, Sarah E Wawrzynski, Ijeoma J Eche-Ugwu, Janene Batten, Deena K Costa, Shelli L Feder, Jennifer M Snaman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Elizabeth G Broden ArcipreteNational Clinician Scholars Program, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1585-1786
Na OuyangSchool of Nursing, Yale University, Orange, CT 06477, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7864-0655
Sarah E WawrzynskiCenter for Healthcare Delivery Science, Nemours Children's Health, Delaware Valley, DE 19803, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2756-2583
Ijeoma J Eche-UgwuPhyllis F. Cantor Center for Research in Nursing and Patient Care Services, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9024-6228
Janene BattenHarvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0121-525X
Deena K CostaNational Clinician Scholars Program, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7776-5349
Shelli L FederNational Clinician Scholars Program, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
Jennifer M SnamanHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, USA.

Funding

AHRQ HHS 5T32HS017589CTSA TR001864
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesHigh-quality pediatric critical care includes supporting children nearing the end-of-life (EOL) and their families. Cataloging existing interventions for children dying in the neonatal or pediatric intensive care unit (NICU, PICU) establishes critical areas for future research. In this scoping review, we evaluated characteristics of PICU EOL interventions.

methodsA librarian guided a search of OVID Medline, CINAHL, OVID PsycINFO, OVID Embase, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science, plus backwards and forwards reference searching. We included interprofessional interventions, defined as any systematic change (e.g., educational programs, symptom management, electronic medical record, etc.), for children dying from any cause. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers. Data were extracted by one team member and reviewed by a second. We extracted intervention elements, contextual factors, implementation barriers/facilitators, and generated frequencies from qualitative coding.

resultsOf 11,643 screened articles, 44 met the inclusion criteria. Most were in neonatal ICUs (n = 28/44, 64%) and general PICUs (n = 10/44, 23%). Most interventions aimed to improve clinician knowledge (25/44, 57%), augment clinical structures and processes (n = 11/44, 25%), or enhance communication (n = 8/44, 18%). Common delivery methods included clinical practice changes (n = 25/44, 57%; e.g., protocols, order sets [n = 12]), and educational sessions (n = 20/44, 45%). Outcomes included clinician knowledge (n = 17/44, 39%), qualitative feedback (n = 18/44, 41%), feasibility/acceptability (n = 12/44, 27%), or treatment utilization (n = 11/44, 25%). Few examined families' mental health (n = 3, 7%) or bereavement (n = 2, 5%). Few reported implementation facilitators or barriers.

conclusionsMost included studies targeted clinician outcomes through education. Designing, testing, and implementing interventions focused on family outcomes is a critical next step.

Indexed as

end-of-life careinterdisciplinaryneonatal critical carepalliative carepediatric critical care

Identifiers

PMID41300603
PMCPMC12651015

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.