Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23071535›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Enhancing communication about paediatric medicines: lessons from a qualitative study of parents' experiences of their child's suspected adverse drug reaction.

Janine Arnott, Hannah Hesselgreaves, Anthony J Nunn, Matthew Peak, Munir Pirmohamed, Rosalind L Smyth, Mark A Turner, Bridget Young

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Understanding drug preferences, different perspectives.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015
    Article
  6. Article
  7. The risks of risk aversion in drug regulation.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2013
    Review
  8. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Janine ArnottInstitute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Hannah Hesselgreaves
Anthony J Nunn
Matthew Peak
Munir Pirmohamed
Rosalind L Smyth
Mark A Turner
Bridget Young

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0606-1170
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is little research on parents' experiences of suspected adverse drug reactions in their children and hence little evidence to guide clinicians when communicating with families about problems associated with medicines.

objectiveTo identify any unmet information and communication needs described by parents whose child had a suspected adverse drug reaction.

methodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews with parents of 44 children who had a suspected adverse drug reaction identified on hospital admission, during in-patient treatment or reported by parents using the Yellow Card Scheme (the UK system for collecting spontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions). Interviews were conducted face-to-face or by telephone; most interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed. Analysis was informed by the principles of the constant comparative method.

resultsMany parents described being dissatisfied with how clinicians communicated about adverse drug reactions and unclear about the implications for their child's future use of medicines. A few parents felt that clinicians had abandoned their child and reported refusing the use of further medicines because they feared a repeated adverse drug reaction. The accounts of parents of children with cancer were different. They emphasised their confidence in clinicians' management of adverse drug reactions and described how clinicians prospectively explained the risks associated with medicines. Parents linked symptoms to medicines in ways that resembled the established reasoning that clinicians use to evaluate the possibility that a medicine has caused an adverse drug reaction.

conclusionClinicians' communication about adverse drug reactions was poor from the perspective of parents, indicating that improvements are needed. The accounts of parents of children with cancer indicate that prospective explanation about adverse drug reactions at the time of prescription can be effective. Convergence between parents and clinicians in their reasoning for linking children's symptoms to medicines could be a starting point for improved communication.

Indexed as

CommunicationDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsProfessional-Family RelationsAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleParents

Identifiers

PMID23071535
PMCPMC3468607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.