Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

The importance of shared decision-making in the neonatal intensive care unit

Journal of Perinatology volume 40, pages 504–509 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective

Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions are common and rising. Parents with infants in the NICU face difficult decisions about their infants’ care. Few studies have investigated parents’ engagement in NICU decisions and its effects on decision regret.

Study design

We surveyed parents of children who had a NICU stay in the past 3 years. We explored whether sociodemographic characteristics affected preferred decision involvement, shared decision-making with NICU clinicians, or decision regret. Multivariable linear regression analyses examined the relationship between shared decision-making and decision regret.

Results

Most parents preferred an active (212/405, 52.3%) or shared (139/405, 34.3%) approach to decision-making. No sociodemographic characteristics related to preferred decision involvement or shared decision-making (p’s > 0.05). In multivariable analyses, shared decision-making, education and health literacy related to less decision regret (p’s < 0.05).

Conclusions

These data suggest the importance of shared decision-making during NICU stays. Studies should identify ways to support parents through NICU decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Harrison W, Goodman D. Epidemiologic trends in neonatal intensive care, 2007–2012. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169:855–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ambalavanan N, Carlo WA, Bobashev G, Mathias E, Liu B, Poole K, et al. Prediction of death for extremely low birth weight neonates. Pediatrics. 2005;116:1367–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Partridge JC, Martinez AM, Nishida H, Boo NY, Tan KW, Yeung CY, et al. International comparison of care for very low birth weight infants: parents’ perceptions of counseling and decision-making. Pediatrics. 2005;116:e263–271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pector EA. Views of bereaved multiple-birth parents on life support decisions, the dying process, and discussions surround death. J Perinatol. 2004;24:4–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brosig CL, Pierucci RL, Kupst MJ, Leuthner SR. Infant end-of-life care: the parents’ perspective. J Perinatol. 2007;27:510–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Weiss EM, Xie D, Cook N, Coughlin K, Joffe S. Characteristics associated with preferences for parent-centered decision making in neonatal intensive care. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172:461–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Boss RD, Hutton N, Sulpar LJ, West AM, Donohue PK. Values parents apply to decision-making regarding delivery room resuscitation for high-risk newborns. Pediatrics. 2008;122:583–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kaempf J, Tomlinson MW, Tuohey J. Extremely premature birth and the choice of neonatal intensive care versus palliative comfort care: an 18-year single-center experience. J Perinatol. 2016;36:190–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Madrigal V, Carroll KW, Hexem KR, Faerber JA, Morrison WE, Feudtner C. Parental decision-making preferences in the pediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:2876–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Elwyn G, Frosh D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersely P, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:1361–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:681–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60:301–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Geurtzen R, Van Heijst A, Hermens R, Scheepers H, Woiski M, Draaisma J, et al. Preferred prenatal counselling at the limits of viability: a survey among Dutch perinatal professionals. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18:1644–6.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Richards CA, Starks H, O’Connor MR, Bourget E, Hays RM, Doorenbos AZ. Physicians perceptions of shared decision-making in neonatal and pediatric critical care. Am J Hosp Palliat Med. 2018;35:669–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Axelin A, Outinen J, Lainema K, Lehtonen L, Franck LS. Neonatologists can impede or support parents’ participation in decision-making during medical rounds in the neonatal intensive care units. Acta Paediatr. 2018;107: https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.14386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Keenan HT, Doron MW, Seyda BA. Comparison of mothers’ and counselors’ perceptions of predelivery counseling for extremely premature infants. Pediatrics. 2005;116:104–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Orfali K, Gordon EJ. Autonomy gone awry: a cross-cultural study of parents’ experiences in neonatal intensive care units. Theor Med Bioeth. 2004;25:329–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Berinsky AJ, Huber GA, Lenz GS. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Anal. 2012;20:351–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kriston L, Scholl I, Holzel L, Loh A, Harter M. The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80:94–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. O’Connor AM, Drake ER, Fiset V, Graham ID, Laupacis A, Tugwell P. The Ottawa patient decision aids. Eff Clin Pract. 1999;2:163–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The Control Preferences Scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29:21–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Morris NS, Maclean CD, Chew LD, Littenberg B. The signle item literacy screener: evaluation of a brief instrument to identify limited reading ability. BMC Fam Pract. 2006;21:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Smith SK, Dixon A, Trevena L, Nutbeam D, McCaffery KJ. Exploring patient involvement in healthcare decision making across different education and functional health literacy groups. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69:1805–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lupton D. Cosumerism, reflexivity and the medical encounter. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45:373–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, Pitkin K, Parikh NS, Coates W, et al. The health care experience of patients with low literacy. Arch Fam Med. 1996;5:329–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cummings J.Committee on Fetus and Newborn Antenatal counseling regarding resuscitation and intensive care before 25 weeks of gestation. Pediatrics. 2015;136:588–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Campbell DE, Fleishman AR. Limits of viability: dilemmas, decisions, and decision makers. Am J Perinatol. 2001;18:117–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Haslam D, Manek N. Whose illness is it anyway? BMJ Opinion. 2019 [cited 20 May 2019]. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2019/05/17/david-haslam-and-nishma-manek-whose-illness-is-it-anyway/.

  29. Baumann-holzle R, Maffezzoni M, Ulrich Bucher H. A framework for ethical decision making in neonatal intensive care. Acta Paediatr. 2005;94:1777–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kenner C, Press J, Ryan D. Recommendations for palliative and bereavement care in the NICU: a family-centered integrative approach. J Perinatol. 2015;35:S19–S23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Dudek-Shriber L. Parent stress in the neonatal intensive care unit and the influence of parent and infant characteristics. Am J Occup Ther. 2004;58:509–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hagen EW, Sadek-Badawi M, Albanese A, Palta M. A comparison of Wisconsin Neonatal Intensive Care Units with National data on outcomes and practices. WMJ. 2008;107:320–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Clifford S, Jewell RM, Waggoner PD. Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Res Politics. 2015;2:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Casler K, Bickel L, Hackett E. Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gatered via Amazaon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Comput Hum Behav. 2013;29:2156–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jeong M, Zhang D, Morgan J, Cornacchione Ross J, Osman A, Boynton M, et al. Similarities and differences in tobacco control research findings from convenience and probability samples. Ann Behav Med. 2019;53:476–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Joseph-Williams N, Edwards A, Elwyn G. The important and complexity of regret in the measurement of ‘good’ decisions: a systemic review and a content analysis of existing assessment instruments. Health Expect. 2011;14:59–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the division of newborn medicine for financially supporting payment of participants. We would also like to thank Barbara Warner, MD for her input on this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Newborn Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and St. Louis Children’s Hospital, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Frank Soltys

  2. Division of Public Health Science, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Sydney E. Philpott-Streiff, Lindsay Fuzzell & Mary C. Politi

Authors
  1. Frank Soltys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sydney E. Philpott-Streiff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lindsay Fuzzell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mary C. Politi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank Soltys.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Soltys, F., Philpott-Streiff, S.E., Fuzzell, L. et al. The importance of shared decision-making in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Perinatol 40, 504–509 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-019-0507-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-019-0507-6

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links