Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27393615›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2016

Childhood fever in well-child clinics: a focus group study among doctors and nurses.

Kirsten K B Peetoom, Luc J L Ploum, Jacqueline J M Smits, Nicky S J Halbach, Geert-Jan Dinant, Jochen W L Cals

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kirsten K B PeetoomDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. kirsten.peetoom@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Luc J L PloumDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Jacqueline J M SmitsDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Nicky S J HalbachEnvida homecare organisation, PO Box 241, 6200, AE, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Geert-Jan DinantDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Jochen W L CalsDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLHumanTotalCare (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFever is common in children aged 0-4 years old and often leads to parental worries and in turn, high use of healthcare services. Educating parents may have beneficial effects on their sense of coping and fever management. Most parents receive information when their child is ill but it might be more desirable to educate parents in the setting of well-child clinics prior to their child becoming ill, in order to prepare parents for future illness management. This study aims to explore experiences of well-child clinic professionals when dealing with childhood fever and current practices of fever information provision to identify starting points for future interventions.

methodsWe held four focus group discussions based on naturalistic enquiry among 22 well-child clinic professionals. Data was analysed using the constant comparative technique.

resultsWell-child clinic professionals regularly received questions from parents about childhood fever and felt that parental worries were the major driving factor behind these contacts. These worries were assumed to be driven by: (1) lack of knowledge (2) experiences with fever (3) educational level and size social network (4) inconsistencies in paracetamol administration advice among healthcare professionals. Well-child clinic professionals perceive current information provision as limited and stated a need for improvement. For example, information should be consistent, easy to find and understand.

conclusionsFever-related questions are common in well-child care and professionals perceive that most of the workload is driven by parental worries. The focus group discussions revealed a desire to optimise the current limited information provision for childhood fever. Future interventions aimed at improving information provision for fever in well-child clinics should consider parental level of knowledge, experience, educational level and social network and inconsistencies among healthcare providers. Future fever information provision should focus on improving fever management and practical skills.

Indexed as

Child Health ServicesFeverNursesPhysiciansAdultChild, PreschoolEmotionsFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInfantLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsParentsChildEducationFeverInformation provisionPreventive child healthcareWell-child care

Identifiers

PMID27393615
PMCPMC4938983
OpenAlexW2465251750

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.