Exploring Distinct Profiles in Paediatric Bioethics—An Analysis of Proactive and Reactive Approaches by Adults

TL;DR

This study explores how adults in Italy approach ethical issues in pediatric care, identifying two distinct groups based on their proactive or reactive strategies.

Contribution

The study identifies two distinct adult profiles in their approaches to pediatric bioethics, offering insights for tailored educational programs.

Findings

One group favors a collaborative and preventive approach to pediatric bioethics.

The other group prefers a reactive, situation-specific approach.

Educational background and experience influence these differing perspectives.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The field of paediatric bioethics addresses ethical issues in paediatric care, where parental authority often guides medical decisions, but children’s preferences should also be considered. Promoting ethical awareness among minors can help them understand complex issues. This study aimed to analyse how sociodemographic, educational, and experiential factors shape adult perspectives on paediatric bioethical issues, particularly concerning pain and death. Methods: A questionnaire was developed to collect adult views of bioethical issues. The online questionnaire was disseminated via e-mail or WhatsApp. It started with an initial group of known individuals and then expanded hierarchically to include contacts of friends. Participants completed an online questionnaire, and data were analysed using SPSS version 22.0 for Windows. Clustering analysis identified two distinct groups. Results: This research focused on Italian adults (N = 889) aged 18 and over. Cluster 1, predominantly female (78.3%) and more highly educated (38.6% with postgraduate degrees), exhibited greater experience with paediatric bioethical issues (81.1%). This group favoured a collaborative approach, supporting shared training among adults (92.3%) and advocating for gradually addressing bioethical issues during childhood (84.3%). Cluster 2, with a higher proportion of males (31.5%) and parents (75.1%), showed lower educational levels (3.0% with middle school education) and less experience with bioethical concerns (93.5%). This group preferred a reactive, situation-specific approach to these issues. Conclusions: This study showed two distinct adult profiles regarding how they approach paediatric bioethics. The first group adopts a preventive and collaborative strategy, while the second group is more reactive and situation-driven. These findings can guide the development of tailored educational programmes to improve discussions about sensitive topics such as pain, incurability, and death in paediatric care.

Figures