Shared Decision-Making, Decisional Conflict and Regret in Periviable Birth Counseling: A Multicenter Cohort Study in the Context of a Decision Aid
This multicenter cohort study demonstrates that utilizing a digital decision aid during periviable birth counseling facilitates high levels of perceived shared decision-making among parents and physicians while resulting in low levels of decisional conflict and regret.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine you are standing at the edge of a foggy cliff, looking out at a vast, uncertain ocean. This is what it feels like when doctors and parents face a "gray zone" in medicine: a situation where the future is unclear, and the choices are heavy with emotion. In the world of extreme prematurity, this gray zone is the tiny window of time before a baby is born too early to be sure they will survive. Here, the rules aren't black and white. Doctors can't just say, "Do this," because the outcome depends on a mix of medical facts and what the family values most. To navigate this fog, experts use a concept called Shared Decision-Making (SDM). Think of SDM not as a doctor handing you a map, but as the doctor and the family sitting down together to draw the map, combining medical data with the family's hopes and fears.
However, drawing a map in a storm is hard. It can lead to Decisional Conflict, which is like feeling paralyzed at a fork in the road, unsure which path is right, or feeling like you don't have enough information to choose. If you pick a path and later wish you had chosen the other, that is Decision Regret. It's the heavy feeling of "what if?" that can linger after a tough choice. Scientists are always looking for better tools to help people navigate these storms. One such tool is a Decision Aid, a digital guide that acts like a compass, organizing the messy information and helping families clarify what matters most to them before they even meet the doctor.
This paper is a story about testing that compass. Researchers gathered data from 47 families and their medical teams in the Netherlands who were facing the possibility of an extremely premature birth between 24 and 26 weeks of pregnancy. They wanted to see if using this digital Decision Aid helped everyone feel more like they were drawing the map together (Shared Decision-Making), less confused (Decisional Conflict), and less likely to look back with regret (Decision Regret).
The results paint a picture of a generally calm journey through the fog. When the families and doctors used the digital guide, they reported very high levels of feeling like they were working together. On a scale of 0 to 100, the parents gave their experience a median score of 86.7, and the doctors gave theirs a 77.8. It seems the compass worked well to bring everyone to the same page. Furthermore, the feeling of being stuck or confused was quite low. The parents' median score for Decisional Conflict was just 20.3, suggesting that most felt clear about their choice. Even the heavy feeling of regret was low; one month after the decision, the median regret score was only 5, and three months later, it was 10.
However, the story isn't perfectly smooth sailing for everyone. The researchers noticed that the families who chose Palliative Comfort Care (a path focused on comfort rather than intensive life-saving measures) felt a bit more conflict and regret than those who chose Early Intensive Care. Similarly, in the few cases where the baby did not survive, the parents reported higher levels of regret. But the authors are careful to point out that this doesn't necessarily mean they regretted the decision they made. Instead, it suggests that the emotional weight of a tragic outcome can make any decision feel harder to carry, regardless of how well the decision was made.
There was also a tiny, strange glitch in the map. In two out of the 47 cases, the parents said in their survey that they chose intensive care, but the doctors said they chose comfort care. The medical records confirmed the doctors were right. This suggests that sometimes, even with a great tool, people can leave a conversation thinking they agreed on something different than what was actually decided. The authors suggest that doctors need to be extra clear at the end of the chat, maybe by asking parents to repeat back the plan, to make sure everyone is truly on the same page.
Overall, the study suggests that using a digital Decision Aid helps parents and doctors feel like they are partners in a difficult journey, reducing confusion and regret. But the authors remind us that while the tool is helpful, it doesn't erase the emotional storm of the situation itself. The compass helps you steer, but it can't stop the waves. The findings are based on a specific group of families in the Netherlands, so while the results look promising, they are a suggestion of what works, not a guaranteed rule for every hospital in the world. The study confirms that when people feel heard and informed, the path forward feels a little less foggy, even when the destination is uncertain.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.