ArticleJournal of pediatrics. Clinical practice2026
Parental Acceptability and Experiences of In-Bed Resuscitation at Birth: Findings From a Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Journal of pediatrics. Clinical practice, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess parental acceptability and experiences of in-bed intact cord resuscitation (ICR) vs standard care during neonatal resuscitation in the Sustained Cord Circulation and Ventilation (SAVE) trial. Study design: A national cross-sectional electronic survey was administered 1 month postpartum (2022-2025). A questionnaire initially developed by Katheria et al was used to assess parental acceptability and experiences of ICR. The survey targeted parents of neonates enrolled in the SAVE trial, a randomized controlled trial investigating ICR for ≥180 seconds with standard care. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Acceptability was compared between groups using χ Results: The response rate was ∼75% and the final analyses included 333 surveys. Most responses were received from mothers. Parents experiencing in-bed ICR reported greater opportunities to see, touch, and maintain proximity to their neonate (OR, 3.88; 95% CI, 2.32-6.48, for physical contact). The in-bed ICR group also expressed a stronger sense of safety and more positive perceptions of study participation compared with those whose neonates received standard care. No differences between the groups were observed in communication with healthcare professionals. Baseline maternal, perinatal, and neonatal characteristics were comparable between the groups. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the psychosocial benefits of in-bed ICR, enhancing parental proximity, safety perceptions, and physical contact during neonatal resuscitation and stabilization. These results provide a vital parental perspective that complements clinical outcomes and supports future considerations of zero-separation practices for resuscitated neonates.
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.