Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42091701›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2026

Evaluation of visitation policies and family information practices in pediatric intensive care units in Turkey: a national survey.

Serhat Emeksiz, Bayram Bayramov, Alper Oglakcioglu, Serhan Ozcan, Tanıl Kendirli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2026. 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

5 authors.

Serhat EmeksizDivision of Pediatric Intensive Care, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey. serhatemeksiz@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8951-4774
Bayram BayramovDivision of Pediatric Intensive Care, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5176-2174
Alper OglakciogluDivision of Pediatric Intensive Care, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3024-5346
Serhan OzcanDivision of Pediatric Intensive Care, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4465-6063
Tanıl KendirliDivision of Pediatric Intensive Care, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9458-2803

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Family-centered care, including open visitation and effective communication, is increasingly recognized as essential in pediatric intensive care. Despite growing international evidence supporting open visitation policies and family involvement, significant variation exists in implementation across different healthcare systems and cultural contexts. This study aimed to evaluate the current visitation policies and family information practices in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in Turkey. A web-based survey was conducted among 59 PICUs across Turkey, focusing on ICU characteristics, visitation policies, and the provision of family information. The survey was distributed through the Turkish Pediatric Intensive Care Society network, and responses were obtained from one designated representative per unit. The majority of the units (78%) allowed a parent to remain at the bedside for 24 h for non-intubated patients, adopting family-centered care. However, 91.5% of the units had at least one restrictive visitation policy. Sibling visitation was prohibited in 67.8% of units. Visitation restrictions were eased under certain circumstances, such as after a diagnosis of brain death (83.1%) or in end-stage illness (76.3%). Family information was provided regularly by physicians in 57.6% of the units, and 49.2% had a dedicated family meeting room. Statistically significant differences were observed between isolation room-only units and mixed-room units regarding 24-h bedside family presence, visit duration, and the location of family information provision (p = 0.012, p = 0.031, p = 0.023, respectively). None of the units permitted family presence during invasive procedures or cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

conclusionWhile a substantial proportion of Turkish PICUs allow 24-h family presence for non-intubated patients, restrictive policies remain common for visitors and siblings. The prohibition on family presence during procedures represents an important gap in the implementation of family-centered care. These findings highlight opportunities for policy development and staff education. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Restrictive visitation policies in pediatric ICUs increase family stress and may prolong patient recovery. • Family-centered care with 24-hour family presence improves patient and family outcomes. • Visitation and family information practices vary widely between countries and institutions. WHAT IS NEW: • This is the first national survey evaluating visitation policies and family information practices in Turkish pediatric ICUs. • Most Turkish PICUs allow 24-hour family presence but maintain some visitation restrictions. • Significant differences exist between isolation-room-only and mixed-room units regarding visitation and family information provision.

Indexed as

Intensive Care Units, PediatricOrganizational PolicyVisitors to PatientsChildFamilyHumansProfessional-Family RelationsSurveys and QuestionnairesTurkeyFamily-centered careFamily information practicesPediatric intensive care units (PICUs)Visitation policies

Identifiers

PMID42091701
PMCPMC13149562

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.