The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Differences in Preferences for Neonatal Outcomes Among Health Care Professionals, Parents, and Adolescents
Abstract
CONTEXT: In neonatal intensive care, parents make important clinical management decisions in conjunction with health care professionals. Yet little information is available on whether preferences of health care professionals and parents for the resulting health outcomes differ. OBJECTIVE: To measure and compare preferences for selected health states from the perspectives of health care professionals (ie, neonatologists and neonatal nurses), parents of extremely low-birth-weight (ELBW) or normal birth-weight infants, and adolescents who were either ELBW or normal birth-weight infants. DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 742 participants were recruited and interviewed between 1993 and 1995, including 100 neonatologists from hospitals throughout Canada; 103 neonatal nurses from 3 regional neonatal intensive care units; 264 adolescents (aged 12-16 years), including 140 who were ELBW infants and 124 sociodemographically matched term controls; and 275 parents of the recruited adolescents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Preferences (utilities) for 4 to 5 hypothetical health states of children were obtained by direct interviews using the standard gamble method. RESULTS: Overall, neonatologists and nurses had similar preferences for the 5 health states, and a similar proportion rated some health states as worse than death (59% of neonatologists and 68% of nurses; P=.20). Health care professionals rated the health states lower than did parents of ELBW and term infants (P<.001). Overall, 64% of health care professionals and 45% of parents rated 1 or more health states to be worse than death (P<.001). Differences in mean utility scores between health care professionals and parents and adolescent respondents were most pronounced for the 2 most severely disabled health states (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: When asked to rate the health-related quality of life for the hypothetical conditions of children, health care professionals tend to provide lower utility scores than do adolescents and their parents. These findings have implications for decision making in the neonatal intensive care unit.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
An overview of mortality and sequelae of preterm birth from infancy to adulthood
Saigal, S., & Doyle, L. W. (2008) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)60136-1 · Cited by 2,818
Self-citationFurlong, W. J., Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G. W., & Barr, R. D. (2001) · Annals of Medicine · doi:10.3109/07853890109002092 · Cited by 751
Wehby, G., & Cassell, C. (2010) · Oral Diseases · doi:10.1111/j.1601-0825.2009.01588.x · Cited by 441
Factors influencing physician prognosis: A scoping review
Ferrand, A., Poleksic, J., & Racine, E. (2022) · MDM Policy & Practice · doi:10.1177/23814683221145158 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Saigal, S.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1999-06-02
- Volume
- 281
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 1991
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2149027091
- Cited by
- 370
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Differences in Preferences for Neonatal Outcomes Among Health Care Professionals, Parents, and Adolescents. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.281.21.1991
- The paper
- Saigal, S. (1999). Differences in Preferences for Neonatal Outcomes Among Health Care Professionals, Parents, and Adolescents. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.281.21.1991
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.