Search

ObjectivesThe majority of newborns in the United States receive intramuscular (IM) vitamin K for prophylaxis against vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB). Oral vitamin K is less effective than IM vitamin K in preventing VKDB but is widely used in Europe and by some in the United States when parents refuse IM vitamin K for their newborn. Our aim was to assess the practices, opinions, and knowledge of newborn clinicians regarding oral vitamin K prophylaxis when parents refuse IM vitamin K.MethodsWe conducted an electronic survey of newborn clinicians from 3 academic medical centers in California, Iowa, and Connecticut. Descriptive statistics and χ2 tests were performed.ResultsOf 160 newborn clinicians at 3 sites, 110 (69%) completed the survey. Of respondents, 58 (53%) believed the incidence of IM vitamin K refusal is increasing and had prescribed or recommended oral vitamin K at least once. Regarding knowledge, 32 (28%) and 23 (20%) respondents did not know whether oral vitamin K decreases the risk of early- and late-onset VKDB, respectively. There were no significant differences in opinions, knowledge, or practices across institutions or practice settings (NICU, well-newborn nursery, or both) (P > .05).ConclusionsOur study findings suggest that newborn clinicians may lack knowledge about the effectiveness of oral vitamin K in preventing VKDB. More information is needed about oral vitamin K regimens and outcomes of newborns who receive oral vitamin K.

ObjectiveDespite American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations, some parents refuse intramuscular (IM) vitamin K as prophylaxis against vitamin K deficiency bleeding for their newborns. The purpose of our study was to describe attitudes and perceptions of parents who choose to defer IM vitamin K for their newborns.MethodsUsing qualitative methodology, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with parents of newborns in 3 hospitals in Connecticut and California. We used the grounded theory approach and the constant comparative method until saturation was reached.ResultsNineteen participants (17 mothers and 2 fathers) of 17 newborns were interviewed; 14 newborns did not receive IM vitamin K due to refusal by the parents, and for 3 newborns IM vitamin K administration was delayed due to initial hesitation by the parents. Four major themes emerged: 1) risk-to-benefit ratio, where parents refused IM vitamin K due to a perceived risk to their newborn from preservatives, for example; 2) "natural" approaches, which led to seeking oral vitamin K or increasing the mother's own prenatal dietary vitamin K intake; 3) placement of trust and mistrust, which involved mistrust of the medical and pharmaceutical community with overlapping concerns about vaccines and trust of self, like-minded allopathic and non-allopathic health care providers, the social circle, the internet, and social media; and 4) informed by experiences, reflecting hospital experiences with prior pregnancies and communication with health care providers.ConclusionsParents' perception of risk, preference for alternative options, trust, and communication with health care providers were pivotal factors when making decisions about IM vitamin K.