BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pediatric residents are at high risk for moral distress, knowing the moral or ethically right thing to do but feeling unable to do it, which is associated with poor patient care and burnout. Researchers have proposed numerous interventions to reduce distress, but few (if any) have been supported by experimental evidence. In this study, we used an experimental method to provide proof-of-concept evidence regarding the effect of various simple supports on pediatric residents' reported degree of moral distress.

METHODS: We conducted a study of pediatric residents using a split sample experimental design. The questionnaire contained 6 clinical vignettes describing scenarios expected to cause moral distress. For each case, participants were randomly assigned to see 1 of 2 versions that varied only regarding whether they included a supportive statement. After reading each of the 6 cases, participants reported their level of associated moral distress.

RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty respondents from 5 residency programs completed the experiment. Cases were perceived to represent common scenarios that cause distress for pediatric residents. The addition of a supportive statement reduced moral distress in 4 of the 6 cases.

CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept study, simple yet effective interventions provided support by offering the resident empathy and shared perspective or responsibility. Interventions that were purely informational were not effective in reducing moral distress.

<p><strong>BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: </strong>Genetic testing is expanding among ill neonates, yet the influence of genetic results on medical decision-making is not clear. With this study, we sought to determine how different types of genetic information with uncertain implications for prognosis influence clinicians' decisions to recommend intensive versus palliative care.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>We conducted a national study of neonatologists using a split sample experimental design. The questionnaire contained 4 clinical vignettes. Participants were randomly assigned to see one of 2 versions that varied only regarding whether they included the following genetic findings: (1) a variant of uncertain significance; (2) a genetic diagnosis that affects neurodevelopment but not acute survival; (3) a genetic versus nongenetic etiology of equally severe pathology; (4) a pending genetic testing result. Physicians answered questions about recommendations they would make for the patient described in each vignette.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Vignette versions that included a variant of uncertain significance, a diagnosis foreshadowing neurodevelopmental impairment, or a genetic etiology of disease were all associated with an increased likelihood of recommending palliative rather than intensive care. A pending genetic test result did not have a significant effect on care recommendations.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Findings from this study of hypothetical cases suggest neonatologists apply uncertain genetic findings or those that herald neurodevelopmental disability in problematic ways. As genetic testing expands, understanding how it is used in decision-making and educating clinicians regarding appropriate use are paramount.</p>