ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2026
Addressing neonatal intensive care unit clinicians' distress via interprofessional meetings.
Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2026. 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
Abstract
objectiveOur primary objective was to determine whether brief, as-needed interprofessional meetings reduced distress related to specific patient cases for interprofessional clinicians in the neonatal intensive care unit. STUDY
designWe collected pre- and post-meeting surveys to quantify clinicians' distress.
resultWe collected 416 paired responses (80% participation rate) from 192 unique clinicians.
resultsAfter meetings, clinicians reported reduced intensity of most distressing thoughts; they were more likely to feel their perspective was heard (1.51 to 1.17, SD 0.82, p < 0.001), the team was united (1.56 to 1.22, SD 0.84, p < 0.001), they could provide good care (1.76 to 1.62, SD 0.98, p < 0.001), and that the rationale for care was reasonable (1.93 to 1.52, SD 0.93, p < 0.001). Moral distress was also lower on post assessments (5.47 to 5.27, SD 2.55, p = 0.005).
conclusionsBrief, as-needed interprofessional meetings decreased distressing thoughts about challenging cases, particularly for those experiencing the greatest distress.
Identifiers
42332053What 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.