ArticleBMC pediatrics2026
Clinicians' post-operative feeding decisions for infants with congenital duodenal obstruction and trans-anastomotic tube usage: a qualitative interview and focus group study.
Article in BMC 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.
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
Abstract
backgroundCongenital Duodenal Obstruction (CDO) is a rare birth defect requiring post-surgical nutritional support, using parenteral nutrition (PN), trans-anastomotic tubes (TAT), or both. TATs offer health and cost benefits, but widespread variation in practice exists: most infants receive PN, and few are fed solely via a TAT. This study aimed to understand how and why clinicians make post-operative feeding decisions for infants with CDO focusing on TATs, and to identify requirements for practice change to increase TAT use and reduce PN.
methodsClinicians working in paediatrics in the UK's National Health Service took part in online interviews (N = 25) and three subsequent focus groups (N = 17 participants). Interviews were coded using thematic analysis to generate themes to understand current feeding practices. Interviewees were sampled purposively to attempt to achieve diversity across workplace location, clinical role, and TAT practice, resulting in participants from 13 different centres and a near-equal distribution of TAT usage: 9 who always or often use TATs, 8 who sometimes use them, and 8 who rarely or never do. Focus groups were used to refine and prioritise interventions for increasing TAT usage.
resultsInterview analysis resulted in four interconnected themes, covering confidence and skills, research scepticism, perceived risks, and organisational inertia. Clinicians requested research demonstrating TATs' safety and effectiveness that largely already exists in the published literature, suggesting the primary barrier to TAT use is a lack of knowledge translation rather than a lack of evidence. Proposed interventions centred on dissemination of existing research and TAT-specific multidisciplinary education and training.
conclusionsClinicians' reluctance to use TATs is multifaceted, rooted in experiential, organisational, and knowledge-based barriers. Increasing TAT usage does not necessarily require new research: dissemination of existing evidence alongside standardised, multidisciplinary education and care pathways should be the immediate priority.
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.