Core outcomes in neonatal encephalopathy: a qualitative study with parents

8Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective To identify the outcomes considered important to parents or caregivers of infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy or birth asphyxia in high-income and low-to middle-income countries (LMiCs), as part of the outcome-identification process in developing a core outcome set (COS) for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. Design A qualitative study involving 25 semistructured interviews with parents or other family members (caregivers) of infants who were diagnosed with, and treated for, neonatal encephalopathy, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy or birth asphyxia. Setting Interviews were conducted in high-income countries (HiCs) (n=11) by Zoom video conferencing software and in LMiCs (n=14) by phone or face to face. Findings Parents identified 54 outcomes overall, which mapped to 16 outcome domains. The domains identified were neurological outcomes, respiratory outcomes, gastrointestinal outcomes, cardiovascular outcomes, motor development, cognitive development, development (psychosocial), development (special senses), cognitive development, development (speech and social), other organ outcomes, survival/living outcomes, long-term disability, hospitalisation, parent-reported outcomes and adverse events. Conclusions This study provides insight into the outcomes that parents of infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy have identified as the most important, to be considered in the process of developing a COS for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. We also provide description of the processes employed to ensure the inclusion of participants from LMiCs as well as HiCs.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Quirke, F., Ariff, S., Battin, M., Bernard, C., Bloomfield, F. H., Daly, M., … Biesty, L. (2022). Core outcomes in neonatal encephalopathy: a qualitative study with parents. BMJ Paediatrics Open, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2022-001550

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free