Optimistic vs Pessimistic Message Framing in Communicating Prognosis to Parents of Very Preterm Infants: The COPE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In the neonatal intensive care unit, there is a lack of understanding about how best to communicate the prognosis of a serious complication to parents. Objective: To examine parental preferences and the effects of optimistic vs pessimistic message framing when providing prognostic information about a serious complication. Design, Setting, and Participants: This crossover randomized clinical trial was conducted at a single German university medical center between June and October 2021. Eligible participants were parents of surviving preterm infants with a birth weight under 1500 g. Data were analyzed between October 2021 and August 2022. Interventions: Alternating exposure to 2 scripted video vignettes showing a standardized conversation between a neonatologist and parents, portrayed by professional actors, about the prognosis of a hypothetical very preterm infant with severe intraventricular hemorrhage. The video vignettes differed in the framing of identical numerical outcome estimates as either probability of survival and probability of nonimpairment (optimistic framing) or a risk of death and impaired survival (pessimistic framing). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was preference odds (ratio of preference for optimistic vs pessimistic framing). Secondary outcomes included state anxiety, perceptions of communication, and recall of numerical estimates. Results: Of 220 enrolled parents (142 [64.5%] mothers; mean [SD] age: mothers, 39.1 [5.6] years; fathers, 42.7 [6.9] years), 196 (89.1%) preferred optimistic and 24 (10.1%) preferred pessimistic framing (preference odds, 11.0; 95% CI, 6.28-19.10; P < .001). Preference for optimistic framing was more pronounced when presented second than when presented first (preference odds, 5.41; 95% CI, 1.77-16.48; P = .003). State anxiety scores were similar in both groups at baseline (mean difference, -0.34; -1.18 to 0.49; P = .42) and increased equally after the first video (mean difference, -0.55; 95% CI, -1.79 to 0.69; P = .39). After the second video, state anxiety scores decreased when optimistic framing followed pessimistic framing but remained unchanged when pessimistic framing followed optimistic framing (mean difference, 2.15; 95% CI, 0.91 to 3.39; P < .001). With optimistic framing, participants recalled numerical estimates more accurately for survival (odds ratio, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.64-9.79; P = .002) but not for impairment (odds ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.85-2.63; P = .16). Conclusions and Relevance: When given prognostic information about a serious complication, parents of very preterm infants may prefer optimistic framing. Optimistic framing may lead to more realistic expectations for survival, but not for impairment. Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00024466.

Ethics education in pediatrics: Implementation and evaluation of an interactive online course for medical students.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed the development of online learning formats in virtually all areas of medical education. In pediatric ethics, online learning may not only substitute but also offer specific advantages over traditional classroom teaching. Many pediatricians rate their ethics education as poor and medical ethics education lacks evaluation, especially regarding the students' needs. The aim of this project was to implement and evaluate a novel interactive distance learning approach to engage medical students in pediatric ethics education. Methods: An online ethics course was designed and delivered between May and June 2020. Core item of this course was a moderated, written forum discussion spanning several days. Evaluation was mixed methods. We evaluated the effectiveness of the course in terms of quality of the learning environment with a particular focus on relevance to students as well as interactive learning and reflective thinking. The Constructivist On-Line Learning Environment Survey (COLLES) was used to evaluate six different domains of the course. Data are presented as mean (standard deviation [SD]). The respective score range is 1-5, whereby a score of 4 or 5 means that the participants indicated the corresponding item as frequently or almost always present. Results: Responses were available from 104 (78.3%) of the 133 participating students. "Relevance" yielded a score of 4.17 (0.83), "reflective thinking" a score of 4.22 (0.83). "Interactivity" was scored 3.76 (0.99) and "tutor support" 4.72 (0.53). "Peer support" and "interpretation" scored 3.87 (0.98) and 4.49 (0.60), respectively. In qualitative analysis, students particularly valued the structure of the course, the relevance for their professional practice, their active participation and the incentive to reflective thinking. Students also indicated that this was an innovative and exciting format, which fills a current educational gap and should hence be continued beyond the pandemic. Conclusion: In conclusion, students actively engaged in online learning and perceived this ethics course as highly relevant for their professional practice.

The COPE-Trial-Communicating prognosis to parents in the neonatal ICU: Optimistic vs. PEssimistic: study protocol for a randomized controlled crossover trial using two different scripted video vignettes to explore communication preferences of parents of preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: One of the numerous challenges preterm birth poses for parents and physicians is prognostic disclosure. Prognoses are based on scientific evidence and medical experience. They are subject to individual assessment and will generally remain uncertain with regard to the individual. This can result in differences in prognostic framing and thus affect the recipients' perception. In neonatology, data on the effects of prognostic framing are scarce. In particular, it is unclear whether parents prefer a more optimistic or a more pessimistic prognostic framing. OBJECTIVE: To explore parents' preferences concerning prognostic framing and its effects on parent-reported outcomes and experiences. To identify predictors (demographic, psychological) of parents' communication preferences. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Unblinded, randomized controlled crossover trial (RCT) at the Division of Neonatology of the University Medical Center Mainz, Germany, including German-speaking parents or guardians of infants born preterm between 2010 and 2019 with a birth weight < 1500 g. Inclusion of up to 204 families is planned, with possible revision according to a blinded sample size reassessment. INTERVENTION: Embedded in an online survey and in pre-specified order, participants will watch two video vignettes depicting a more optimistic vs. a more pessimistic framing in prognostic disclosure to parents of a preterm infant. Apart from prognostic framing, all other aspects of physician-parent communication are standardized in both videos. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: At baseline and after each video, participants complete a two-part online questionnaire (baseline and post-intervention). Primary outcome is the preference for either a more optimistic or a more pessimistic prognostic framing. Secondary outcomes include changes in state-anxiety (STAI-SKD), satisfaction with prognostic framing, evaluation of prognosis, future optimism and hope, preparedness for shared decision-making (each assessed using customized questions), and general impression (customized question), professionalism (adapted from GMC Patient Questionnaire) and compassion (Physician Compassion Questionnaire) of the consulting physician. DISCUSSION: This RCT will explore parents' preferences concerning prognostic framing and its effects on physician-parent communication. Results may contribute to a better understanding of parental needs in prognostic disclosure and will be instrumental for a broad audience of clinicians, scientists, and ethicists. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00024466 . Registered on April 16, 2021.