Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Perspectives of extremely prematurely born adults on what to consider in prenatal decision-making: a qualitative focus group study
  1. Angret de Boer1,2,
  2. Lien De Proost3,
  3. Marieke de Vries4,
  4. Marije Hogeveen2,
  5. E J T (Joanne) Verweij1,
  6. Rosa Geurtzen2
  1. 1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  2. 2 Department of Neonatology, Amalia Children’s Hospital, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  3. 3 Department of Medical Ethics and Health Law, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  4. 4 Institute for Computing and Information Sciences (iCIS), Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Angret de Boer, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Leiden Universitair Medisch Centrum, Leiden 2333, The Netherlands; a.h.a.de_boer{at}lumc.nl

Abstract

Objective A shared decision-making (SDM) approach is recommended for prenatal decisions at the limit of viability, with a guiding role for parental values. People born extremely premature experience the consequences of the decision made, but information about their perspectives on prenatal decisions is lacking. Therefore, this study aims to describe their perspectives on what is important in decision-making at the limit of viability.

Design Semi-structured focus group discussions were conducted, recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data were independently analysed by two researchers in Atlas.ti.

Results Four focus groups were conducted in the Netherlands, with five to six participants each, born between 240/7 and 300/7 weeks gestation in the period between 1965 and 2002. Considering their personal life experiences and how their extremely premature birth affected their families, the participants reflected on decision-making at the limit of viability. Various considerations were discussed and summarised into the following themes: anticipated parental regret, the wish to look at the baby directly after birth, to give the infant a chance at survival, quality of life, long-term outcomes for the infant and the family, and religious or spiritual considerations.

Conclusions Insights into the perspectives of adults born extremely premature deepened our understanding of values considered in decision-making at the limit of viability. Results point out the need for a more individualised prediction of the prognosis and more extensive information on the lifelong impact of an extremely premature birth on both the infant and the family. This could help future parents and healthcare professionals in value-laden decision-making.

  • Neonatology
  • Ethics
  • Qualitative research
  • Resuscitation
  • Intensive Care Units, Neonatal

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors AdB took part in designing the study, collected the data through focus group discussions, carried out the initial analyses of the data and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. LDP designed the study, collected the data, carried out the initial analyses together with AdB, reviewed and revised the manuscript. MdV and MH made a substantial contribution to the analyses and interpretation of the data by participating in the discussions about the data and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript in multiple rounds of feedback. EJTV and RG conceptualised and designed the study, contributed to and supervised the analyses of the collected data and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. AdB accepts full responsibility for the finished work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.

  • Funding EJTV was funded by ZonMw Clinical Fellow program (90719039). The other authors received no additional funding.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.