AIM: To investigate the (dis)agreement between, and compare the determinants of, parent and clinician severity scores.
DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study of 8394 children presenting to primary care with acute (≤28 days) cough and RTI.
METHOD: Data on sociodemographic factors, parent-reported symptoms, clinician-reported findings, and severity assessments were used. Kappa (κ)-statistics were used to investigate (dis) agreement, whereas multivariable logistic regression was used to identify the factors associated with illness severity.
RESULTS: Parents reported higher illness severity (mean 5.2 [standard deviation (SD) 1.8], median 5 [interquartile range (IQR) 4-7]), than clinicians (mean 3.1 [SD 1.7], median 3 [IQR 2-4], P<0.0001). There was low positive correlation between these scores (+0.43) and poor inter-rater agreement between parents and clinicians (κ 0.049). The number of clinical signs was highly correlated with clinician scores (+0.71). Parent-reported symptoms (in the previous 24 hours) that were independently associated with higher illness severity scores, in order of importance, were: severe fever, severe cough, rapid breathing, severe reduced eating, moderate-to-severe reduced fluid intake, severe disturbed sleep, and change in cry. Three of these symptoms (severe fever, rapid breathing, and change in cry) along with inter/subcostal recession, crackles/crepitations, nasal flaring, wheeze, and drowsiness/irritability were associated with higher clinician scores.
CONCLUSION: Clinicians and parents use different factors and make different judgements about the severity of children's RTI. Improved understanding of the factors that concern parents could improve parent-clinician communication and consultation outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire entitled the Family Presence Risk-Benefit Scale and Family Presence Self-Confidence Scale. Purposive sampling method was used to include 130 nurses working in eight Intensive Care Units at Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia. Descriptive statistics and Pearson's Correlation test were used to analyse the variables of FPDR.
RESULTS: Findings revealed that nurses in the critical care setting perceived low risk-benefit and low self-confident with regards to family presence during resuscitation. Pearson correlation analysis showed no correlation between perceptions of risk-benefits and self-confidence among critical care nurses (r = -0.016).
CONCLUSION: Relatively, nurses perceived that family presence during resuscitation would place high risk and low benefit to the family members. Thus there is a need for education, training, and guideline to enrich the concept of FPDR and its implementation.
METHODS: Consenting parents participated in a semi-structured interview assessing their experience of having their child involved in BST. The qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. Parents were assured that their children's treatment would not be negatively affected in the case of withdrawal from the study.
RESULTS: A total of 54 parents responded and discussed their experience of their children's participation in clinical teaching. The majority of parents were keen to support medical students' learning, and felt that they could develop better insight into their child's health in association with the teaching session. Some parents found the sessions tiring; their interest increased when they were more actively involved in planning the BST sessions.
DISCUSSION: This study emphasises children's and adolescents' autonomy as a main principle in making decisions about involving them in BST. Clinical teachers often face problems attempting to properly plan and conduct BST sessions. Parents appreciate having an active role in planning the sessions and are supportive of medical student education. Clinical teachers must ensure that they protect the best interests of paediatric patients and their parents. At the same time, they should advocate for the obvious benefits of BST.
METHODS: Adolescent providers (n = 151) from Argentina, Malaysia, South Africa, South Korea, and Spain were surveyed on messages, family decision makers, and sources of communication to best motivate parents to vaccinate their adolescent daughters overall, and against human papillomavirus. Multivariate logistic regression assessed the likelihood of recommending messages specifically targeted at cervical cancer with providers' characteristics: gender, medical specialization, and previous administration of human papillomavirus vaccination.
RESULTS: Mothers were considered the most important human papillomavirus vaccination decision makers for their daughters (range 93%-100%). Television was cited as the best source of information on human papillomavirus vaccination in surveyed countries (range 56.5%-87.1%), except Spain where one-on-one discussions were most common (73.3%). Prevention messages were considered the most likely to motivate parents to vaccinate their daughters overall, and against human papillomavirus, in all five countries (range 30.8%-55.9%). Optimal messages emphasized cervical cancer prevention, and included strong provider recommendation to vaccinate, vaccine safety and efficacy, timely vaccination, and national policy for human papillomavirus vaccination. Pediatricians and obstetricians/gynecologists were more likely to cite that the best prevention messages should focus on cervical cancer (OR: 4.2, 95% CI: 1.17 to 15.02 vs other medical specialists).
CONCLUSIONS: Provider communication messages that would motivate parents to vaccinate against human papillomavirus were based on strong recommendation emphasizing prevention of cervical cancer. To frame convincing messages to increase vaccination uptake, adolescent providers should receive updated training on human papillomavirus and associated cancers, while clearly addressing human papillomavirus vaccination safety and efficacy.