
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0309914
PONE-D-24-09858
Research Article
Biology and Life Sciences
Developmental Biology
Neonates
Medicine and Health Sciences
Women's Health
Maternal Health
Neonatal Care
Medicine and Health Sciences
Pediatrics
Neonatology
Neonatal Care
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Neonatal Care
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Health Care Providers
Physicians
People and Places
Population Groupings
Professions
Medical Personnel
Physicians
Social Sciences
Economics
Health Economics
Health Insurance
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Health Economics
Health Insurance
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Psychology
Decision Making
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Decision Making
Social Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Decision Making
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
Cognition
Decision Making
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Palliative Care
Medicine and Health Sciences
Pediatrics
People and Places
Geographical Locations
Asia
Iran
Beyond the healthcare system: The societal and contextual factors impacting parents’ participation in decision-making for neonates with life-threatening conditions
Parent’s participation in healthcare decision-making
Oskouie Fatemeh Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Methodology Writing – review & editing 1 2
Khanjari Sedigheh Methodology Writing – review & editing 1 2
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8554-2735
Banazadeh Marjan Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Methodology Project administration Supervision Validation Writing – original draft 2 3 4 ¤ *
1 Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Health Management Research Institute, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Nursing, School of Nursing, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran
4 Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Gurgel Ricardo Q. Editor
Federal University of Sergipe, BRAZIL
Competing Interests: The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.” “Potential Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose.” “Funding: none.

¤ Current address: Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran

* E-mail: banazadehmarjan@gmail.com, banazadeh54@yahoo.com
6 9 2024
2024
19 9 e03099144 4 2024
20 8 2024
© 2024 Oskouie et al
2024
Oskouie et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Background

Parents of neonates with life-threatening conditions and professionals, bear the burden of making complex decisions. Parents may not be fully involved in decision-making, and there is a paucity of evidence regarding the influence of social context on parents’ participation. We aimed to explore factors that extended beyond the healthcare system and impacted parents’ participation in decision-making for neonates with life-threatening conditions.

Materials and methods

This qualitative research was carried out in 2019 in four level-III Iranian NICUs, (neonatal intensive care units) where twenty-three face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed, and analyzed using a conventional content analysis technique. Interviews were condensed into meaningful units during the coding phase, resulting in 206 open codes. These codes were then categorized into eleven categories based on commonalities and distinctions. This iterative process continued until 4 main subcategories were established.

Results

The main categories and sub-categories were “unmodified regulations according to the neonatology advances” (lack of regulations to modify ineffective treatments, lack of a legally documented do not resuscitate order, lack of a defined regional neonatal viability threshold, and lack of maternal guardianship of child medical care), “deficiencies of the health insurance system” (covering the cost of ineffective treatments and lack of insurance covering for palliative care services), “treatment-oriented culture in society” (expecting a miracle for medical science, difficult acceptance of neonatal death and difficult acceptance of home death), and “physician-oriented culture in society” (excessive respect for physicians’ decision-making eligibility and social position of physicians).

Conclusion

The findings revealed concepts surrounding parents’ participation in decision-making for life-threatening conditions neonates are influenced by social, legal, cultural, and financial aspects. To bridge the gap between healthcare professionals’ attitudes and cultural and religious beliefs, fatwas, and laws, a collaborative approach is necessary. To address the complex challenges of decision-making for these neonates, involving stakeholders like clinicians, legal experts, Islamic scholars, sociologists, jurists, judges, and medical ethicists is crucial for modifying laws to align with neonatology advancements.

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Data AvailabilityAll relevant data are within the manuscript.
Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Parents of neonates with life-threatening conditions (LTC), alongside professionals, bear the weighty responsibility of making crucial decisions [1]. The process of making decisions in these situations can be complex and involve medical, social, and ethical considerations. Parents should have the right to be involved in decision-making (DM) regarding their child’s healthcare [2]. Decisions concerning children are steered by principles of collaborative DM, whereby the parent and clinician are regarded as being on a status that seems to be of equal value [3]. The use of shared decision-making in pediatrics specifically for children with medical complexity is not well-understood [4] and parents’ involvement in DM is not sufficiently implemented in clinical settings [5]. In Iran, the importance of parents’ involvement in making healthcare decisions for their children is not emphasized, and families face challenges when dealing with their neonates who have LTC [6].

The involvement of parents in DM for neonates with LTC conditions [7] is related to factors including ethical principles, morality, values, beliefs, standards, legal considerations, and personal and professional experience [8]. Research in the area of neonates with LTC has identified a range of factors that can be classified into several dimensions, encompassing aspects related to parents, neonates, organizations, and healthcare professionals. Among the dimensions associated with parents, key factors include parental competencies, self-efficacy, beliefs, and living conditions [9, 10]. Neonatal-related dimension encompasses structural malformations, gestational age, and chromosomal abnormalities [11]. Organizational-related dimension encompasses power imbalances, deficiencies in ethics committees and hospital regulations, limited resources, and limited choices for ongoing hospitalization [12]. The dimension related to healthcare professionals encompasses various factors, including risk aversion, information deficiencies, and clashes of attitudes [13].

Regarding DM in LTC, the perception of what is morally acceptable or unacceptable in the healthcare environment can vary depending on the socio-cultural context [14] which can differ greatly among various societies [15]. In addition to the organizational aspects of the health system and the individuals involved in the DM process, it is important to address the factors related to the societal context. On the other hand, legal representations are strongly connected to the social context in which they exist, and as a result, they are both shaped by and have an impact on that context [16].

There is a lack of research that explores the societal context that can impact parents’ involvement in DM in neonatal healthcare settings. It is important to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomena. Qualitative research offers a cultural and contextual explanation and understanding of social phenomena that cannot be obtained through quantitative research methods. It is suitable for examining the process of healthcare DM, the context in which it takes place, and the perspectives of those involved [17]. This qualitative study aimed to explore the factors that extended beyond the healthcare system and impacted parents’ participation in DM for neonates with LTC.

Materials and methods

Study design

This multicenter study applied a qualitative content analysis approach to explore the factors that extended beyond the healthcare system and impacted parents’ participation in DM for neonates with LTC in 2019, in Iran.

Participants and settings

The process of DM is a social and interactive phenomenon that involves multiple individuals. The study included a total of twenty-three participants who were either directly or indirectly engaged in DM for neonates with LTC. The study involved a cohort comprising 10 parents (5 mothers and 5 fathers) of hospitalized neonates, 4 nursing professionals, and 6 neonatologists employed in the NICUs. Among the neonatologists, one individual held a position as an official within the Neonatal Health Office of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MOHME). Additionally, the participants consisted of an insurance agent, a forensic physician, and, and a Jurisprudence and Principles of Islamic Law (JPIL) expert. All participants were Iranian and spoke Farsi. They were selected based on their willingness to participate in the study and share their experiences. The professionals included in the study had at least 1 year of clinical experience in neonatal healthcare settings. The research was carried out in 4 level-III NICUs of governmental and educational hospitals affiliated with Iran, and Tehran Medical Sciences Universities. In these centers newborns who were either ≤28 days old or weighed ≤2.5 kg were admitted. All the centers offered care to newborns who were at least twenty-four weeks gestational age and in 2 centers newborns who required surgical procedures were hospitalized. None of the NICUs had the capability of providing care in heart surgeries.

In this study, purposeful sampling [18] was used to select parents of neonates with LTC such as prematurity, complex congenital anomalies, and severe asphyxia [17]. The researchers conducted in-depth, semi-structured, face-to-face interviews. The participants agreed on the location, date, and time that were chosen. The interviews took place between September 2018 and October 2019 and lasted 43 to 102 minutes. The participants gave their permission for the interviews to be recorded. The team of researchers talked about whether the questions were suitable. The interviews started by asking a general question tailored to each participant and then followed up based on their responses (Table 1). Furthermore, probing questions were asked to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon. To provide an accurate description and interpretation of the participant’s responses, field notes were recorded during the interviews. The researchers conducted a total of twenty-four interviews, continuing until they reached data saturation, and determined that additional interviews would not yield any new data.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309914.t001 Table 1 The interview guides.

Interview guide of parents	
Please talk about your baby’s condition.

How did you participate in decisions being made for your neonate?

How would you like to be involved in these decisions?

What barriers prevent you from participating in DM?

What are the facilitators of your participation in DM?

	
Interview guide of health care Professionals	
How do you involve parents in DM?

What barriers prevent parents from participating in DM?

What are the facilitators of parents’ participation in DM?

	
Interview guide of individuals indirectly involved in DM	
What do you think about parents’ participation in DM for neonates with life-threatening conditions??

How do health system policies prevent parents’ participation in DM?

How do existing laws and rules prevent parents’ participation in DM

	

Reliability and validity

To establish trustworthiness, the criteria proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1985) [17] such as credibility, confirmability, dependability, and transferability were used. The credibility of the study was improved by closely observing and interacting with the participants over 9 months [19]. For member checking a summary of the codes and themes that emerged from the data was shared with the participants for data verification. Additionally, data and method triangulation were employed to enhance the credibility of the results [17]. Field journaling was used as a means to implement reflexivity strategies. Reflexivity enhanced confirmability to avoid researchers’ professional experiences influencing their interpretation of events [19]. Four unbiased faculty members assessed the procedure to verify the dependability of the study [17]. Documentation of the decisions made during data generation and analysis ensured the transferability of the findings and also served as an inquiry audit for other researchers who may want to use the same data [19].

Ethical consideration and consent to participate

The study was approved by the ethics review committee at Iran University of Medical Sciences (IR.IUMS.REC.1397.388). The objectives of the study were initially explained verbally and in writing, and informed consent was obtained. To protect the identities of the participants, pseudonyms were used. Participants were guaranteed the confidentiality of their data, the right to refuse or withdraw at any point, and were informed that their participation was voluntary and anonymous.

Data analysis

A qualitative content analysis with a conventional approach was used to analyze data. Data collection and analysis were conducted simultaneously. The researchers transcribed the recorded interviews word for word. Next, the process of inductive content analysis was carried out in three stages: preparation, organization, and reporting [20]. In the initial phase of preparation, each transcribed interview or field note was treated as an individual data unit, and the researchers engaged in thorough readings of these materials on several occasions to gain a comprehensive understanding of the data. The organizing phase consisted of 3 steps: open coding, category creation, and abstraction. In the phase of open coding, labels were created utilizing the participants’ own language to develop succinct meaning units. Then initial codes were grouped into subcategories based on similarities and differences. The number of categories was reduced by combining similar ones into more general categories at a higher level of abstraction resulting in a comprehensive abstract description. This was achieved by moving back and forth between the categories and subcategories. During the reporting stage, the findings of the study were prepared for publishing. The research team reached an agreement on the coding and categorization process. The analysis was managed in MAXQDA software [10].

Results

Demographic characteristics of participants

The ages of the parents varied between 27 and 49 years. Among them, one parent possessed a basic education, 6 held diplomas, and one had completed a bachelor’s degree. Furthermore, 2 individuals received education beyond the level of a bachelor’s degree. Of the mothers, 4 were homemakers while one was in employment. Regarding the fathers, three were self-employed, one was a General Physician, and one worked as a teacher. Three parents had faced infertility issues, with 5 undergoing various treatments. Five parents had only the hospitalized neonate as their child, while 3 parents had one additional child each, and 2 parents had 2 additional children each. The ages of the infants at the time of the interviews ranged between 8–44, with gestational ages between twenty-five and thirty-nine weeks. Among the newborns, there were 5 boys, four girls, and one with ambiguous genitalia. The newborns’ hospitalization length during the interviews varied between 6–93 days.

Other participants’ ages ranged between27-59 years old. There were 8 women and 5 men, 12 married and one single. One had no children, f5 had one child, and 7 had 2 children. Their work experience ranged between 5–29 years, with NICU experience ranging between 5–25 years.

Main results

Data analysis resulted in establishing 206 final codes, which were organized into 11 categories, 4 subcategories, and a singular overarching theme (Table 2).

10.1371/journal.pone.0309914.t002 Table 2 The societal and contextual factors affecting parents’ participation in DM.

Example of participants’ quotations	Categories	Sub-categories	Main theme	
“We are required to do all treatments. In cases where parents refuse ineffective invasive treatments, the neonatologist defers to the forensic physician to make the decision. This is to prevent any legal complications. If the forensic physician orders to proceed with the procedure, the parents have no say in the matter” (nurse-18).	Lack of regulations to modify ineffective treatments	Unmodified regulations according to the neonatology advances	Beyond the healthcare system	
“Issuing the non-resuscitation order is against the law. Occasionally, CPR is ineffective and we do not perform it, but we are still required to fill out the CPR form. We pretended we did CPR and Many deaths are attributed to unsuccessful CPR on record, but in reality, they occur due to the decision to cease futile CPR attempts” (neonatologist-23).	Lack of a legally documented do not resuscitate order	
“According to the texts, neonates over 24 weeks gestational age are viable, and caring for this neonate is significantly challenging. While some NICUs may have the resources to provide high-quality care to them, remote areas may lack these capabilities. sometimes a 25-week-old baby may be very ill and parents may not afford NICU costs. Legal obligations dictate that the child is viable and every effort must be made to sustain the child. However, if legally protected, we could inform the family if the child’s condition does not improve and treatment proves ineffective (neonatologist-16).	Lack of a defined regional neonatal viability threshold	
“Mothers are not given the authority to provide consent, while fathers have this right. Despite the physical and emotional challenges mothers endure during pregnancy, their opinions are not sought or valued. I like both my husband and I to be consulted. Is it only the father’s opinion that matters? What about mine? Am I being disregarded” (mother-4).	Lack of maternal guardianship of child medical care	
Insurance services influence decisions, in the intubated neonate, the insurance covers all expenses. In this scenario, even if it is not effective, doctors may not feel as pressured to make decisions for the patient. The patient remains on life support until passing away, parents are not financially burdened to make a decision. This may make it easier for them to feel that they have done the best for their child” (insurance company agent-19).	Covering the cost of ineffective treatments	Deficiencies of the health insurance system	
“It could be more cost-effective for insurance companies to cover palliative care. Insurance costs are determined by the services and treatments prescribed by doctors. There may be a requirement for a more thorough evaluation of the expenses associated with palliative care, rather than continuing with ineffective and intrusive treatments. When palliative care is done legally, officially, and documented, then its services are covered by insurance” (Insurance company agent-19).	Lack of insurance covering palliative care services	
“Currently, if I didn’t have a seriously ill neonate with a complex illness and wasn’t personally affected by this issue, my perspective might be different. Like many others, I might have said no, it’s a shame, all efforts to treat the baby should persist because now science has progressed. Well, now I find myself in a difficult situation, I can comprehend more deeply that continuing the treatment would be futile. Without firsthand experience of these difficulties, one cannot make a decision. I never anticipated being caught up in this dilemma” (father-6)	Expecting a miracle for medical science	Treatment-oriented culture in society	
“During my wife’s pregnancy, we shopped daily, purchasing clothes, toys, and a crib for our baby. We also prepared his room, and our family eagerly awaited his arrival. How can we say that our child will not survive” (father-6)	Difficult acceptance of neonatal death	
“in our culture, families are reluctant to bring the child home to pass away. They would rather have the child remain in the hospital and pass away there” (nurse-12).	Difficult acceptance of home death	
Parents often have difficulty talking to doctors and may not express their disagreement. However, they are more likely to openly disagree with nurses, providing multiple reasons and becoming angry. This behavior may be influenced by the societal emphasis on the importance of doctors” (nurse-18).	Excessive respect for physicians’ decision-making eligibility	Physician-oriented culture in society	
“The influence of a country’s culture also plays a role. In my opinion, societal awareness has not advanced sufficiently to facilitate parental involvement in decision-making processes. in DM. It has become so common in our culture that we doctors do everything for the benefit of the patient. Most of the decisions are made by the doctors” (neonatologist-11).	Social position of physicians	

Beyond the healthcare system

Results of interviews with individuals who were directly and indirectly involved in DM for neonates with LTC revealed that certain factors influenced parents’ engagement in DM. These factors were not related to the structure of healthcare organizations or providers but rather were influenced by the legal and cultural context of the society. This overarching theme consisted of four subcategories, each arising from various categories.

Unmodified regulations according to the neonatology advances

Some legal limitations prevented HPs from involving parents in the DM process due to the inconsistency between laws and advancements in newborn care. This subcategory emerged from the 4 following categories.

Lack of regulations to modify ineffective treatments. The participants believed that although they were using current technologies to keep critically ill infants alive, they faced difficulties in transitioning from invasive to non-invasive treatments due to a lack of clear regulations on when to stop ineffective treatments. As a result, they were unable to effectively communicate honest information to parents about their neonate’s condition promptly, hindering their involvement in the decision-making process. Participants stated: “We have an extremely ill neonate with severe asphyxia and frequent seizure episodes who is currently under the ventilator. However, only the heart beats, and even the pupils do not respond. The parents desire to stop the ventilator, but it is against the law to do so, even with parents’ consent” (neonatologist-16).

“There is a gap in the legal system that needs to be addressed by reviewing and revising laws. The hospital’s ethics committees should identify and report the challenges presented by these cases to lawmakers”

(forensic physician-20)

Lack of a legally documented do not resuscitate order. The lack of a legally documented do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order impacted the involvement of parents in DM. Participants believed that a documented order stating not to resuscitate in cases where it would be ineffective was not considered valid. Consequently, the fear of potential legal action led to verbal discontinuation of resuscitation efforts and prevented HPs from including parents in the DM process. Participants stated: “Even if the parents do not agree, the medical team is mandated to try until the last moment because it is obligatory to preserve life. Many times they do CPR and the child will suffer until the child dies and there is nothing they can do” (Associate Professor of JPIL-21).

In certain situations, the patient may not be resuscitated. but this decision is kept confidential. A doctor may verbally order not to resuscitate the patient without a written order due to concerns about complaints from the family. In these cases, the nurse may neglect these neonates and deprive them of receiving quality care while they are still alive. However, there should be clear regulations to inform everyone about the formal and legal procedures to follow

(nurse-18).

Lack of a defined regional neonatal viability threshold. According to the participants, there was no specific threshold determining the survival chances for newborns in any specific location within the country that impacted the involvement of parents in DM. One participant stated: “A neonate born at 26 weeks of gestational age in a hospital in the capital may receive adequate care and be discharged, but what about in a remote area lacking facilities? In such a setting, the neonate may receive care and survive but could experience serious long-term sequelae. Regulations on viability thresholds should be tailored to the available facilities in each region and parents should decide about it” (nurse-18).

Lack of maternal guardianship of child medical care. The lack of maternal guardianship of child medical care was another factor that impacted parental involvement in DM. According to participants fathers, as legal guardians of infants, had the authority to make decisions regarding their neonates’ treatment, while mothers did not possess this official and legal right. Informed consent was obtained in the presence of fathers and with their signatures, and this legal limitation hindered mothers’ participation in DM. One participant stated: “It’s unfair that the mother can’t sign the consent form. I don’t agree with this. The mother also has the right to make decisions, as she carries the child for 9 months with difficulty. Why doesn’t the mother have the right to decide on the treatment, It doesn’t seem fair that only the father is required to sign the consent form for treatment. I strongly oppose this” (neonatologist-14).

Deficiencies of the health insurance system

Issues with insurance services were also identified as one of the factors that came from the 2 categories.

Covering the cost of ineffective treatments. Extensive health insurance coverage for ineffective treatments made it easier for doctors and parents to continue using these treatments, impacting their DM process. In this context, participants held the following beliefs. One participant stated: “Insurance covers the expenses, relieving parents of concerns about the costs of ineffective treatments. They prefer to try everything for their child and see the outcome. This affects their decision-making, as they may choose to bring the child home and request to stop ineffective treatments sooner if they have to spend money. Ultimately, insurance coverage frequently has a contrary impact in this situation” (nurse-15).

Lack of insurance covering palliative care services. As per the individuals involved, the absence of regulation for insurance coverage of palliative care was also identified as a flaw that impacted parents’ involvement in DM. The participants stated: “When insurance covers the cost of medicine and equipment, more costly drugs are typically utilized. However, if parents have to pay, the situation completely shifts” (Insurance company agent-19).

“There is an immediate necessity for a palliative care team; however, the challenge is the lack of insurance coverage for the associated expenses. We have situations where a mother suffering from depression requires psychological therapy, but insurance does not include coverage for this type of counseling”

(neonatologist-17).

Treatment-oriented culture in society

The study findings indicated that the treatment-oriented culture of society was also a factor that influenced how parents participated in making decisions for neonates with life-threatening conditions. This subcategory came from 3 categories.

Expecting a miracle for medical science. According to the participants, the excessive expectations of society and the overwhelming pressure to save lives at any cost hindered parents from being able to promptly participate in DM. One participant stated: “The doctors may be forced to continue costly and ineffective treatments. It’s common in society, people usually anticipate the doctor to prescribe pills or injections for them, even if they don’t need it. However, this perspective needs to be changed. Perhaps numerous families with neonates suffering from incurable illnesses are seeking ways to alleviate their child’s pain” (neonatologist-23).

Difficult acceptance of neonatal death. Participants found it challenging to accept the death of newborns in society, which was another aspect of the culture focused on treatment that influenced parents’ involvement in DM. One participant stated: “People can’t see a newborn baby die soon and expect it to live for many years” (nurse-12).

Difficult acceptance of home death. The results indicated that the society’s inclination to prolong medical treatment until the patient died in a hospital, and the reluctance to acknowledge death occurring at home, led to an emphasis on treatment and ongoing hospital care. This influenced the involvement of parents in DM. Participants stated: “No matter what happens if it’s God’s will to take my baby, let it happen while we’re still in the hospital. How can I bring her home?” (mother-7).

“I would rather the baby pass away in the hospital. Our home, where we have experienced two years of joy and laughter since getting married, would be harmful to us if the baby were to die there”

(father-6).

Physician-oriented culture in society

The confidence that physicians possess in their DM authority, supported by a physician-centric societal culture, has also impeded parental involvement in DM processes. This subcategory was derived from 2 distinct categories‥

Excessive respect for physicians’ decision-making eligibility. Participants expressed the view that societal confidence in the DM abilities of physicians resulted in parents perceiving these professionals as more reliable than themselves in the context of DM, which in turn led to a reluctance to voice their own perspectives. One participant stated: “It is more about people’s perspective about patients and the overall societal attitude towards doctors. People believe that doctors have greater knowledge” (neonatologist-22).

Social position of physicians. The esteemed professional and scientific standing of physicians conferred upon them enhanced societal influence and authority, thereby affecting parental DM and bestowing physicians with significant power. Participants stated: “I don’t usually consult the doctor because I say, well, she is a doctor, why should I disturb her time? I feel that she is busy and I don’t want to bother her” (mother-2).

“In contemporary society, although nurses are equipped with considerable knowledge, physicians continue to maintain a position of authority. Parents often exhibit a higher level of trust in the physicians’ sayings compared to those of nurses, even though both groups possess considerable knowledge and expertise in their respective fields‥”

(nurse-12).

Discussion

This study explored the contextual factors that extended beyond the healthcare system and impacted parents’ participation in DM for neonates with LTC. These factors encompassed legal and cultural aspects of society, which were classified into four subcategories and their categories.

The lack of regulations to modify ineffective treatments impacted parents’ participation in DM. When a child needs extensive life-saving treatments despite a weak prognosis, there are often concerns about whether the interventions are futile. Medical futility occurs when the treatment is unable to provide its intended effect [21]. When the harmful effects of a treatment are greater than the possible advantages for a person, that treatment may no longer be in their best interest, even if it is not futile [22]. Infants are not able to communicate their likes and beliefs, so it is generally expected that parents will make decisions on their behalf in their best interest [23] and their values should guide the consideration of the potential harms and benefits [22]. A collaborative DM process is necessary, involving parents and clinicians working together to incorporate medical information and parental values [24]. This strategy receives support from policymakers and regulatory bodies globally [25]. The legal considerations for neonatal care may differ based on the neonate’s location.

In the United States, most states have enacted legislation indicating that physicians are not required to provide treatment that is considered futile or lacking in medical efficacy [26]. Legal matters concerning the assessment of whether the disadvantages of an action are greater than the advantages are frequently debated using case law. It is strongly recommended to first attempt to resolve any potential conflicts within a team or between team members and families before resorting to legal requirements in all situations. In Iran as a Muslim country, Islamic ethics and Islamic law are seen as interconnected and cannot be separated [27]. In Islam deliberately ending a patient’s life is viewed unlawful and as a form of homicide [28]. Nayeri et al. (2019) indicated that in Iran, the absence of explicit regulations in national legislation and the medical code of ethics concerning the initiation, continuation, or cessation of life-saving treatments has led many practitioners to encounter a legal void, prompting them to make decisions influenced by their religious or moral convictions [29]. Furthermore, according to Banazadeh et al (2020), the risk aversion exhibited by healthcare professionals, along with their conservative practices, significantly impacted the involvement of parents in decision-making. Such conservative behaviors stemmed from concerns about potential litigation and fear of being accountable to the parents [13]. In Iran, while the survival rate of neonates facing life-threatening conditions has improved, initiating timely and clear communication with parents regarding the ineffectiveness of the treatment is challenging. Parents are often unprepared to transition from aggressive treatment methods to more compassionate, non-invasive alternatives. The unavailability of formal palliative care options and the absence of a palliative care ward or nursery for newborns caused continued hospitalization and continued ineffective treatment of the newborn [12]. Additionally, the education on palliative care, including neonatal and pediatric palliative care, is not incorporated into the clinical training or academic curriculum for nursing in Iran. The Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSc) program includes only 2 to 4 hours of theoretical instruction on death and the care of deceased individuals [30]. Recently, a single credit unit titled “Ethical, Legal and Professional Principles in Newborn Care” has been incorporated into the curriculum for the Master’s degree in neonatal intensive care nursing. In a cross-sectional study conducted in Iran in 2022, hospital records of twenty infants with severe hereditary metabolic disease were reviewed. The study revealed that although in 8 cases (40%), the parents (fathers) did not consent to the continuation of their child’s treatment, in 7 cases (87.5%), the physicians continued the treatment (frequent sampling, medication, blood transfusion, and counseling for central vein placement) unchanged. Only in one neonate, blood sampling was stopped and the child was provided pain relief and comfort. In all instances where parental consent for the treatment measures was not obtained, there was no convening of a multi-specialty consultation meeting or a hospital committee to resolve the conflict between the physicians and the parents, nor to reach a consensus regarding the decision. Despite the parent’s consent to discontinue treatment, some procedures were performed that included the collection of several blood samples and the administration of medications, blood transfusions, and consultations concerning the placement of a venous cutdown catheter. The authors stated that the absence of specific instructions for such conditions results in the treatment team continuing with ineffective treatments [31].

The lack of a legally documented DNR order also impacted parents’ participation in DM. Several studies in Iran have indicated a prevalent disapproval of the DNR order [32, 33]. However, informal and verbal DNR orders in clinical settings are issued, which resulted in legal, ethical, and operational difficulties [33]. According to a study by Cheraghi et al. in 2016, which focused on the experiences of Iranian physicians with DNR orders, all individuals involved in the research viewed the absence of legal assistance as the primary reason for not adhering to the DNR directive. They suggested that creating a clinical guideline supported by legal measures could address numerous issues related to the DNR order to help prevent the provision of ineffective and unnecessary care [34].

In this study, participants believed the lack of a defined neonatal regional viability threshold impacted parents’ participation in DM. Periviability, also known as the limit of viability, is the earliest point of fetal development (typically occurring between twenty-two and twenty-four weeks of pregnancy) when there is a chance, though not necessarily a strong probability, of the newborn surviving [35]. According to the Iranian National Maternal and Neonatal Registration Network (IMAN), At twenty-three weeks of gestational age, only 5.7% of infants survived, and the mortality rate was approximately 50% at twenty-eight weeks of gestational age [36].

There is no consistent standard for determining the viability of all fetuses in all settings and situations, especially one that relies solely on gestational age [37]. When there’s a significant risk of death or severe morbidity, parents should be informed about the realistic options and their associated risks and benefits. It’s crucial to seek the parents’ perspectives on resuscitation and consider the best interests of the newborn when making decisions [38]. Decision-making for a newborn at the edge of viability should be informed by the most reliable evidence regarding the newborn’s prognosis. It’s important to consider all relevant factors and not solely rely on gestational age [39]. In all decisions, the level of regional perinatal care services should be considered. In a research conducted in an eastern city of Iran, researchers discovered that newborns at a gestational age of twenty-seven weeks and three days were found to be capable of survival. They emphasized that this finding is specific to that region and may not apply to other areas within the country [40]. Akrami and colleagues (2021) argue that there is a need for enhanced care to improve outcomes for premature newborns in Iran. While the study participants noted that the absence of a clear threshold for neonatal regional viability is a barrier to parental involvement in DM, implementing a perinatal regionalization program could improve resource utilization and outcomes for newborns.

Furthermore, the lack of maternal guardianship of child medical care impacted parental involvement in DM. Guardianship, known as wilayah, is a legal status that allows an authorized individual to manage the affairs of someone unable to do so themselves. In essence, this person, known as a wali, has the power to act on behalf of another. In Shia law, the father and paternal grandfather are granted the authority of guardianship over the child [41]. According to Fairhurst and Long 2020 in a review study of parental involvement in DM in NICU, some fathers believed that mothers should have greater influence in DM, particularly regarding the newborn’s care, as it would impact them more. It was also discovered that mothers typically made the final decision [42].

Furthermore, shortcomings in the healthcare insurance system affected parental involvement in DM. Participants felt that the insurance coverage for the expenses of diagnostic and therapeutic measures led to the newborn being hospitalized and receiving prolonged ineffective treatments, which made it difficult to consider transitioning to palliative care. However, the lack of coverage for home care and palliative care expenses hindered the discharge of the newborn and utilize home care and hospice services. Delivering home-based palliative care leads to better utilization of resources and cost savings [43]. This approach decreases expenses by transitioning from costly hospital care to coordinated and less expensive outpatient care [44]. While in many countries, insurance companies cover the costs of palliative care services, in Iran, insurance companies do not pay for hospice and palliative care [45].

According to participants, treatment-oriented culture in society affected how parents were involved in DM. They faced pressure from the public expectation to rely on medical science for miraculous treatments, which impacted their viewpoints and practices. Decision-making is influenced by the cultural context [46]. Based on Mirlashari et al., 2020 the social and cultural environment influences how parents perceive and expect to be involved in caregiving, as well as shaping the attitudes of healthcare professionals towards parental involvement [47]. Different cultures have a significant impact on the ethical decision-making process in crucial medical situations. The perception of what is ethical or unethical in healthcare can vary depending on the socio-cultural environment [14]. Parents’ decisions about newborn care and their preferences for continuing or discontinuing treatment are shaped by their cultural background, values, religious beliefs, public awareness of the healthcare system, and societal norms [48]. Excessive optimism among parents about the potential for treatment is fueled by unrealistic hopes for technological advancements in society [49]. Iranmanesh et al, 2014 found families in Iran are unwilling to accept a poor prognosis for their child [30].

Additionally, the challenging acceptance of neonatal death and neonatal deaths occurring at home was another cultural treatment-oriented factor that affected parents’ participation in DM. The death of a child always brings about pain, sorrow, and hardship for both families and communities [50] and is affected by the media, and public expectations to save sick and premature infants. Family DM and the prompt transition to palliative care are often influenced more by public perception and cultural norms. [51] On the other hand, according to Banazadeh and Rafii 2020, there has been less focus on providing home-based and hospice care for neonates with LTC compared to hospital-based care [52]. As a result, there is limited literature on home deaths. It is necessary to develop strategies for organizing home-based neonatal palliative care and evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of home-based care versus hospital-based care, as well as determining the preferred location for end-of-life care.

Physician-oriented culture in society also was another beyond the healthcare system that affected parents’ participation in DM. Participants believed excessive respect for physicians’ decision-making eligibility and the social position of physicians stopped parents from being involved in DM. Another factor outside of the healthcare system that influenced parents’ involvement in decision-making was the physician-oriented culture in society. Participants felt that the high level of respect for physicians’ authority and social status hindered parents from taking an active role in DM. Some research studies support our findings. Many Iranian patients are not aware of their right to be informed and participate in decisions regarding their health [53]. Individuals frequently adopt a passive stance and perceive themselves as incapable of questioning the decisions made by physicians [54]. Many do not feel confident enough to make decisions for their children [53]. Mirlashari et al 2020 in a study on the challenges of implementing family-centered care in the NICU highlighted the significant influence of the unquestioned authority of physicians that parents tend to defer DM to them, indicating a lack of confidence in their ability to make decisions about their critically ill newborn. Participants recognized the historical context of physicians’ dominance in the NICU, citing their powerful position in Iranian society as a contributing factor [47].

Conclusion

We explored the external factors that affected parents’ participation in DM for neonates with LTC conditions, beyond the confines of the healthcare system. Our findings revealed that the understanding of concepts like futility, DNR orders, the threshold of viability, maternal guardianship, parental autonomy, neonatal death acceptance, and medical technology varied depending on social, legal, cultural, and financial factors. Addressing the discrepancies between healthcare professionals’ attitudes and religious beliefs, fatwas, and laws requires a collaborative approach. To navigate the complex ethical dilemmas surrounding neonates with LTC conditions and update laws to align with advancements in neonatology, input from a range of stakeholders such as clinicians, legal experts, Islamic scholars, sociologists, jurists, judges, and medical ethicists is essential.

Limitations and recommendation

The variety of participants in the study was a positive aspect, but potential bias from researchers is a common drawback in qualitative research. To address this, the researchers employed techniques such as member checking and collaborated closely with co-researchers.

The authors express their gratitude to all participants who contributed their valuable experiences, which greatly assisted in this endeavor.

Abbreviations

DM decision making

DNR do-not-resuscitate

EOL end of life

FCC family-centered care

LTC life-threatening conditions

NICU neonatal intensive care unit

NPC neonatal palliative care

SDM shared decision making

10.1371/journal.pone.0309914.r001
Decision Letter 0
Gurgel Ricardo Q. Academic Editor
© 2024 Ricardo Q. Gurgel
2024
Ricardo Q. Gurgel
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
7 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-09858Beyond the Healthcare system: The societal and contextual factors impacting parents’ participation in decision-making for neonates with life-threatening conditions Parent’s participation in healthcare decision-makingPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Banazadeh,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The manuscript was well evaluated but there is an usefull suggestion I think the authors must observe. Please respond and include the suggestion and the manuscript may be accepted.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 21 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ricardo Q. Gurgel, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: A brief description of the local health system structure is necessary since in the results it appears as one of the analysis categories and the American System is mentioned in the discussion to compare.

Reviewer #2: The study provides a good contribution regarding factors that impact parental participation in medical decisions related to critically ill newborns and this aspect is best addressed with qualitative research. Despite the small sample, all steps of the method are adequately described, with a correct explanation of possible biases. The results adequately support the conclusions and achieve the proposed objectives.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Aline de Siqueira Alves Lopes

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309914.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
13 Aug 2024

Reply to comments ID PONE-D-24-09858

Translation and psychometric evaluation of the Persian version of the Nurse Clinical Reasoning Scale: A methodological study

First of all, we would like to express our gratitude to the editor and the reviewers for their constructive comments and helpful suggestions. We greatly appreciate the careful reading of our manuscript. We have considered your comments and corrected the manuscript accordingly. A point-by-point response to the referees’ comments is given below:

If you have any questions about this paper, please do not hesitate to let me know. My e-mail address is:

banazadehmarjan@gmail.com

Comments Ref/ Page

Reviewer #1: A brief description of the local health system structure is necessary since in the results it appears as one of the analysis categories and the American System is mentioned in the discussion to compare.

I would like to express my gratitude to the esteemed reviewer for their insightful comments.

The recommended information was added and the highlighted details can be found on Pages 17, lines 13-23, 18, lines 13-23,19, and lines 1-6.

Reviewer #2: The study provides a good contribution regarding factors that impact parental participation in medical decisions related to critically ill newborns and this aspect is best addressed with qualitative research. Despite the small sample, all steps of the method are adequately described, with a correct explanation of possible biases. The results adequately support the conclusions and achieve the proposed objectives.

I would like to express my gratitude to the esteemed reviewer for their insightful comments.

Attachment Submitted filename: corrections PLOS ONE.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0309914.r003
Decision Letter 1
Gurgel Ricardo Q. Academic Editor
© 2024 Ricardo Q. Gurgel
2024
Ricardo Q. Gurgel
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
21 Aug 2024

Beyond the Healthcare system: The societal and contextual factors impacting parents’ participation in decision-making for neonates with life-threatening conditions Parent’s participation in healthcare decision-making

PONE-D-24-09858R1

Dear Dr. Banazadeh,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ricardo Q. Gurgel, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

You have responded correctly the suggestions and the manuscript is ready for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

10.1371/journal.pone.0309914.r004
Acceptance letter
Gurgel Ricardo Q. Academic Editor
© 2024 Ricardo Q. Gurgel
2024
Ricardo Q. Gurgel
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
28 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-09858R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Banazadeh,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Ricardo Q. Gurgel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 Renjilian CB , Womer JW , Carroll KW , Kang TI , Feudtner C . Parental explicit heuristics in decision-making for children with life-threatening illnesses. Pediatrics. 2013;131 (2 ):e566–e72. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-1957 23319524
2 Coyne I . Families and health‐care professionals’ perspectives and expectations of family‐centred care: hidden expectations and unclear roles. Health expectations. 2015;18 (5 ):796–808.23800327
3 Streuli JC , Anderson J , Alef-Defoe S , Bergsträsser E , Jucker J , Meyer S , et al . Combining the best interest standard with shared decision-making in paediatrics—introducing the shared optimum approach based on a qualitative study. European journal of pediatrics. 2021;180 :759–66. doi: 10.1007/s00431-020-03756-8 32809079
4 Jacobs S , Davies N , Butterick KL , Oswell JL , Siapka K , Smith CH . Shared decision-making for children with medical complexity in community health services: a scoping review. BMJ Paediatrics Open. 2023;7 (1 ). doi: 10.1136/bmjpo-2023-001866 37012004
5 Watts R , Zhou H , Shields L , Taylor M , Munns A , Ngune I . Family-centered care for hospitalized children aged 0–12 years: A systematic review of qualitative studies. JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports. 2014;12 (7 ):204–83.
6 Kadivar M , Madani M , Mardani Hamooleh M , Ghasemzadeh N . An ethical approach to providing medical, supportive and palliative services for infants with chronic renal failure and their families. Iranian Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine. 2016;8 (5 ):10–9.
7 Wright V , Prasun MA , Hilgenberg C . Why is end-of-life care delivery sporadic?: A quantitative look at the barriers to and facilitators of providing end-of-life care in the neonatal intensive care unit. Advances in Neonatal Care. 2011;11 (1 ):29–36. doi: 10.1097/ANC.0b013e3182085642 21285651
8 Coward H , Ratanakul P . A cross-cultural dialogue on health care ethics: Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press; 2006.
9 Aarthun A , Akerjordet K . Parent participation in decision‐making in health‐care services for children: an integrative review. Journal of nursing management. 2014;22 (2 ):177–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01457.x 23406447
10 Aarthun A , Øymar KA , Akerjordet K . Parental involvement in decision‐making about their child’s health care at the hospital. Nursing open. 2019;6 (1 ):50–8. doi: 10.1002/nop2.180 30534394
11 Chenni N , Lacroze V , Pouet C , Fraisse A , Kreitmann B , Gamerre M , et al . Fetal heart disease and interruption of pregnancy: factors influencing the parental decision‐making process. Prenatal diagnosis. 2012;32 (2 ):168–72. doi: 10.1002/pd.2923 22418961
12 Banazadeh M , Oskouie F , Khanjari S . Organizational Factors Affecting Parents’ Participation in Decision-Making for Neonates With Life-threatening Conditions: A Grounded Theory Study. Iran Journal of Nursing. 2022;35 (135 ):28–45.
13 Banazadeh M , Khanjari S , Naddaf A , Oskouie F . Healthcare professionals‐related factors affecting parents’ participation in decision making for neonates with life‐threatening conditions: A qualitative study. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2021;27 (4 ):885–97. doi: 10.1111/jep.13492 33103330
14 Chattopadhyay S , Simon A . East meets West: Cross-cultural perspective in end-of-life decision making from Indian and German viewpoints. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2008;11 (2 ):165–74. doi: 10.1007/s11019-007-9106-y 18046628
15 Ganz FD , Benbenishty J , Hersch M , Fischer A , Gurman G , Sprung C . The impact of regional culture on intensive care end of life decision making: an Israeli perspective from the ETHICUS study. Journal of medical ethics. 2006;32 (4 ):196–9. doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.012542 16574871
16 De Felice D , Giura G . From a sheltered to expulsion item: The transformation of unaccompanied minors’ legal culture. Oñati Socio-Legal Series. 2022;12 (6 ):1358–90.
17 Holloway I , Galvin K . Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare: John Wiley & Sons; 2016.
18 Corbin J , Strauss AL . Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory: California, SAGE publications; 2015.
19 Denise F , Cheryl B . Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins pp-26–27. 2013.
20 Elo S , Kääriäinen M , Kanste O , Pölkki T , Utriainen K , Kyngäs H . Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE open. 2014;4 (1 ):2158244014522633.
21 Weise KL , Okun AL , Carter BS , Christian CW , Katz AL , Laventhal NT , et al . Guidance on forgoing life-sustaining medical treatment. Pediatrics. 2017;140 (3 ). doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1905 28847979
22 Lemmon ME , Wusthoff CJ , Boss RD , Rasmussen LA , Guidelines NBS , Committee P , editors. Ethical considerations in the care of encephalopathic neonates treated with therapeutic hypothermia. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine; 2021: Elsevier.
23 Katz AL , Webb SA , Macauley RC , Mercurio MR , Moon MR , Okun AL , et al . Informed consent in decision-making in pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2016;138 (2 ).
24 Sullivan A , Cummings C . Historical perspectives: shared decision making in the NICU. NeoReviews. 2020;21 (4 ):e217–e25. doi: 10.1542/neo.21-4-e217 32238484
25 Boland L , Graham ID , Légaré F , Lewis K , Jull J , Shephard A , et al . Barriers and facilitators of pediatric shared decision-making: a systematic review. Implementation Science. 2019;14 :1–25.30611302
26 Bosslet GT , Pope TM , Rubenfeld GD , Lo B , Truog RD , Rushton CH , et al . An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM policy statement: responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2015;191 (11 ):1318–30. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201505-0924ST 25978438
27 Aksoy S. Some principles of Islamic ethics as found in Harrisian philosophy. Journal of medical ethics. 2010:226–9. doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.034389 20338934
28 Banović B , Turanjanin V . Euthanasia: murder or not: a comparative approach. Iranian journal of public health. 2014;43 (10 ):1316. 26056652
29 Nayeri F , Asghari F , Baser A , Janani L , Shariat M , Tanha K , et al . Factors influencing the attitudes of NICU physicians toward care of neonates with very poor prognosis. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine. 2019;12 .
30 Iranmanesh S , Banazadeh M , Forozy MA . Nursing staff’s perception of barriers in providing end-of-life care to terminally ill pediatric patients in Southeast Iran. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®. 2016;33 (2 ):115–23. doi: 10.1177/1049909114556878 25376225
31 Darabi M , Shahbaznejad L , Madani M , Kadivar M . Frequency of Medical Futility and its Costs in Deceased Neonates with a Probable Diagnosis of Inherited Metabolic Disorder in Children’s Medical Center, Iran. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. 2022;32 (209 ):125–33.
32 Fallahi M , Banaderakhshan H , Abdi A , Borhani F , Kaviannezhad R , Karimpour HA . The Iranian physicians attitude toward the do not resuscitate order. Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare. 2016:279–84. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S105002 27418832
33 Mogadasian S , Abdollahzadeh F , Rahmani A , Ferguson C , Pakanzad F , Pakpour V , et al . The attitude of Iranian nurses about do not resuscitate orders. Indian journal of palliative care. 2014;20 (1 ):21. doi: 10.4103/0973-1075.125550 24600178
34 Cheraghi M , Bahramnezhad F , Mehrdad N . Experiences of Iranian physicians regarding do not resuscitate: a directed-content analysis. Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine. 2016;9 :9. 27957286
35 Kornhauser Cerar L , Lucovnik M . Ethical Dilemmas in Neonatal Care at the Limit of Viability. Children. 2023;10 (5 ):784. doi: 10.3390/children10050784 37238331
36 Akrami F , Mohammadi G , Looha MA , Habibelahi A , Mehrabi Y , Ahmadi SD , et al . Survival of very preterm infants in the Islamic Republic of Iran: A population-based retrospective cohort study. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 2021;35 :41. doi: 10.47176/mjiri.35.41 34268229
37 Pettker CM , Turrentine MA , Simhan HN . The Limits of Viability. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2022:10.1097.
38 Bader D , Kugelman A , Boyko V , Levitzki O , Lerner-Geva L , Riskin A , et al . Risk factors and estimation tool for death among extremely premature infants: a national study. Pediatrics. 2010;125 (4 ):696–703. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-1607 20351002
39 Qattea I , Farghaly MA , Kattea MO , Abdula N , Mohamed MA , Aly H . Survival of infants born at periviable gestation: The US national database. The Lancet Regional Health–Americas. 2022;14 . doi: 10.1016/j.lana.2022.100330 36777383
40 Boskabadi H , Kalateh Molaee M , Ghavidel M . Determining the viability of preterm newborns hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care unit in Ghaem hospital, Mashhad. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. 2014;24 (119 ):163–73.
41 Noori SM , Torabi M . The Principle of Protecting the Best Interests of the Child in Shia Jurisprudence and Iran’s Legal System with Emphasis on Custody (New Understanding of a Traditional Legal Concept). Asian Journal of Legal Education. 2019;6 (1–2 ):67–82.
42 Fairhurst N , Long T . Parental involvement in decision-making in the neonatal intensive care unit: a review of the international evidence. Paediatrics and Child Health. 2020;30 (4 ):119–23.
43 Wilkinson D , Savulescu J . Disability, discrimination and death: is it justified to ration life saving treatment for disabled newborn infants? Monash Bioethics Review. 2014;32 :43–62. doi: 10.1007/s40592-014-0002-y 25434064
44 Gans D , Hadler MW , Chen X , Wu S-H , Dimand R , Abramson JM , et al . Cost analysis and policy implications of a pediatric palliative care program. Journal of pain and symptom management. 2016;52 (3 ):329–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2016.02.020 27233140
45 Zarea K , Rassouli M , Hazrati M , Molavynejad S , Beiranvand S . Comparison of the hospice palliative care delivery systems in Iran and selected countries. International Journal of Cancer Management. 2020;13 (6 ).
46 Berestova A , Gorenkov R , Orlov S , Starostin V . Ethics in medical decision making: an intercultural outlook. Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana. 2019;24 (5 ):144–51.
47 Mirlashari J , Brown H , Fomani FK , de Salaberry J , Zadeh TK , Khoshkhou F . The challenges of implementing family-centered care in NICU from the perspectives of physicians and nurses. Journal of pediatric nursing. 2020;50 :e91–e8. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2019.06.013 31300252
48 Kumaran VS , Bray Y . Palliative care for newborn infants–the current scene in New Zealand and the way forward. Sites: a journal of social anthropology and cultural studies. 2010;7 (2 ):113–29.
49 Davies B , Sehring SA , Partridge JC , Cooper BA , Hughes A , Philp JC , et al . Barriers to palliative care for children: perceptions of pediatric health care providers. Pediatrics. 2008;121 (2 ):282–8. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-3153 18245419
50 Knapp C , Madden V , Woodworth L , Fowler-Kerry S . An overview of pediatric palliative care. Pediatric Palliative Care: Global Perspectives. 2012:3–13.
51 Kain VJ , Wilkinson DJ . Neonatal palliative care in action: moving beyond the rhetoric and influencing policy. Journal of Research in Nursing. 2013;18 (5 ):459–68.
52 Banazadeh M , Rafii F . A concept analysis of neonatal palliative care in nursing: Introducing a dimensional analysis. Comprehensive Child and Adolescent Nursing. 2021;44 (3 ):209–34.
53 Ramezani T , H Shirazi Z , S Sarvestani R , Moattari M . Family-centered care in neonatal intensive care unit: a concept analysis. International journal of community based nursing and midwifery. 2014;2 (4 ):268. 25349870
54 Mostafaie H , Parniyanfard N , Ghojazadeh M , Pourmalek A , Madanlou K , Abbaspour M , et al . Shared decision-making and its correlation with demographic characteristics of Iranian patients. British Journal of Medicine and Medical Research. 2014;4 (16 ):3140.
