ArticleScientific reports2026
The resuscitation team members' lived experiences regarding futile cardiopulmonary resuscitation in children and newborn infants: A phenomenological study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Futility is difficult to define in the context of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , as it refers to the low likelihood of success. Healthcare providers face challenges when performing pediatric/neonatal Resuscitation. This study aimed to explore the lived experiences of resuscitation team members regarding futile Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in children/newborns. A qualitative descriptive phenomenological approach was used with purposive sampling, resulting in 11 members of the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation team for children/newborns (7 nurses/4 physicians). Data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted online/face-to-face and analyzed using Colaizzi's descriptive phenomenological method. Findings revealed two main themes: "useful or traumatic futile resuscitation; the paradoxical feelings," and "the tension of attempting resuscitation despite knowing it is futile."The first theme included "justifying the usefulness of futile resuscitation" and "examining the adverse outcomes of futile resuscitation," while the second included "coercion to futile resuscitation for others' interests," "symbolic resuscitation for social-legal reasons," and "coercion to futile resuscitation for the resuscitator's benefit." Participants perceived a paradox between futility and usefulness based on their values, beliefs, experiences, and interpretation of consequences. Facing this dichotomy under pressure to perform futile resuscitation created distressing experiences. Given the absence of clinical guidelines for do-not-resuscitate, developing such guidelines is essential to prevent confusion and moral distress among health professionals.
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.