↓ Skip to main content

Professionals’ preferences in prenatal counseling at the limits of viability: a nationwide qualitative Dutch study

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Pediatrics, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
Title
Professionals’ preferences in prenatal counseling at the limits of viability: a nationwide qualitative Dutch study
Published in
European Journal of Pediatrics, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00431-017-2952-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosa Geurtzen, Arno van Heijst, Jos Draaisma, Laura Ouwerkerk, Hubertina Scheepers, Mallory Woiski, Rosella Hermens, Marije Hogeveen

Abstract

Prenatal counseling practices at the limits of viability do vary, and constructing a counseling framework based on guidelines, professional and parental preferences, might achieve more homogeneity. We aimed to gain insight into professionals' preferences on three domains of counseling, particularly content, organization, and decision making and their influencing factors. A qualitative, nationwide in-depth exploration among Dutch perinatal professionals by semi-structured interviews in focus groups was performed. Regarding content of prenatal counseling, preparing parents on the short-term situation (delivery room care) and revealing their perspectives on "quality of life" were considered important. Parents should be informed on the kind of decision, on the difficulty of individual outcome predictions, on survival and mortality figures, short- and long-term morbidity, and the burden of hospitalization. For organization, the making of and compliance with agreements between professionals may promote joint counseling by neonatologists and obstetricians. Supportive materials were considered useful but only when up-to-date, in addition to the discussion and with opportunity for personalization. Regarding decision making, it is not always clear to parents that a prenatal decision needs to be made and they can participate, influencing factors could be, e.g., unclear language, directive counseling, overload of information, and an immediate delivery. There is limited familiarity with shared decision making although it is the preferred model. This study gained insight into preferred content, organization, and decision making of prenatal counseling at the limits of viability and their influencing factors from a professionals' perspective. What is Known: • Heterogeneity in prenatal counseling at the limits of viability exists • Differences between preferred counseling and actual practice also exists What is New: • Insight into preferred content, organization, and decision making of prenatal periviability counseling and its influencing factors from a professionals' perspective. Results should be taken into account when performing counseling. • Particularly the understanding of true shared decision making needs to be improved. Furthermore, implementation of shared decision making in daily practice needs more attention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 7 8%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 21 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 15%
Psychology 5 6%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Decision Sciences 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 25 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 July 2017.
All research outputs
#13,559,942
of 22,986,950 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Pediatrics
#2,396
of 3,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,423
of 313,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Pediatrics
#38
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,986,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.