Jori F Bogetz1,2, Anna Revette3, Danielle DeCourcey4. 1. Division of Pediatric Bioethics and Palliative Care, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA. 2. Seattle Children's Research Institute, Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Seattle, Washington, USA. 3. Survey and Data Management Core, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Division of Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
Background: Many children with complex chronic conditions (CCCs) are supported by medical technologies. Objective: The aim of this study was to understand bereaved parent perspectives on technology assistance among this unique population. Design: Mixed methods design was used to analyze data from the cross-sectional Survey of Caring for Children with CCCs. Setting/Subjects: Bereaved parents of children with CCCs who received care at a large academic institution in the United States and died between 2006 and 2015. Measurements: Survey items were analyzed descriptively and integrated with thematic analysis of open-response items to identify key themes pertaining to parents' perspectives on technology. Results: 110/211 (52%) parents completed the survey and at least 1 open-response item. More than 60% of parents had children with congenital/chromosomal or central nervous system progressive CCCs, used technology at baseline, and died in the hospital. A subset of parents recalled making decisions either not to initiate (n = 26/101, 26%) or to discontinue (n = 46/104, 44%) technology at end of life. Parents described both the benefits and burdens of technology. Two themes emerged regarding technology's association with the (1) intersection with goals of care and (2) complications and regret. Within goals of care, two subthemes arose: (a) technology was necessary to give time for life extension and/or to say goodbye, and (b) technology greatly impacted the child's quality of life and symptoms. Conclusions: Parents have nuanced perspectives about the benefits and burdens of technology. It is essential to understand parent's most important goals when supporting decisions about technology assistance for children with CCCs.
Background: Many children with complex chronic conditions (CCCs) are supported by medical technologies. Objective: The aim of this study was to understand bereaved parent perspectives on technology assistance among this unique population. Design: Mixed methods design was used to analyze data from the cross-sectional Survey of Caring for Children with CCCs. Setting/Subjects: Bereaved parents of children with CCCs who received care at a large academic institution in the United States and died between 2006 and 2015. Measurements: Survey items were analyzed descriptively and integrated with thematic analysis of open-response items to identify key themes pertaining to parents' perspectives on technology. Results: 110/211 (52%) parents completed the survey and at least 1 open-response item. More than 60% of parents had children with congenital/chromosomal or central nervous system progressive CCCs, used technology at baseline, and died in the hospital. A subset of parents recalled making decisions either not to initiate (n = 26/101, 26%) or to discontinue (n = 46/104, 44%) technology at end of life. Parents described both the benefits and burdens of technology. Two themes emerged regarding technology's association with the (1) intersection with goals of care and (2) complications and regret. Within goals of care, two subthemes arose: (a) technology was necessary to give time for life extension and/or to say goodbye, and (b) technology greatly impacted the child's quality of life and symptoms. Conclusions: Parents have nuanced perspectives about the benefits and burdens of technology. It is essential to understand parent's most important goals when supporting decisions about technology assistance for children with CCCs.
Entities:
Keywords:
children with complex chronic conditions; pediatrics; technology
Authors: Wendy G Lichtenthal; Kailey E Roberts; Corinne Catarozoli; Elizabeth Schofield; Jason M Holland; Justin J Fogarty; Taylor C Coats; Lamia P Barakat; Justin N Baker; Tara M Brinkman; Robert A Neimeyer; Holly G Prigerson; Talia Zaider; William Breitbart; Lori Wiener Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Denise M Goodman; Matthew Hall; Amanda Levin; R Scott Watson; Roberta G Williams; Samir S Shah; Anthony D Slonim Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2011-06-27 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jay G Berry; Matt Hall; David E Hall; Dennis Z Kuo; Eyal Cohen; Rishi Agrawal; Kenneth D Mandl; Holly Clifton; John Neff Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Douglas L Hill; Victoria Miller; Jennifer K Walter; Karen W Carroll; Wynne E Morrison; David A Munson; Tammy I Kang; Pamela S Hinds; Chris Feudtner Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2014-03-13 Impact factor: 3.234