Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28854953›Full record

ReviewItalian journal of pediatrics2017

Humanization of pediatric care in the world: focus and review of existing models and measurement tools.

Marina Tripodi, Maria Anna Siano, Claudia Mandato, Anna Giulia Elena De Anseris, Paolo Quitadamo, Salvatore Guercio Nuzio, Claudia Viggiano, Francesco Fasolino, Annalisa Bellopede, Maria Annunziata and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Italian journal of pediatrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

15 authors.

Marina TripodiCattedra di Pediatria, Dipartimento di Medicina, Chirurgia e Odontoiatria "Scuola Medica Salernitana", Università di Salerno , Via Allende, Baronissi (Salerno), 84081, Italy.
Maria Anna SianoCattedra di Pediatria, Dipartimento di Medicina, Chirurgia e Odontoiatria "Scuola Medica Salernitana", Università di Salerno , Via Allende, Baronissi (Salerno), 84081, Italy.
Claudia MandatoPediatria Sistematica AORN "Santobono-Pausilipon", Naples, Italy.
Anna Giulia Elena De AnserisPediatria AOU "S.Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi D'Aragona", Salerno, Italy.
Paolo QuitadamoPediatria Sistematica AORN "Santobono-Pausilipon", Naples, Italy.
Salvatore Guercio NuzioPediatria AOU "S.Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi D'Aragona", Salerno, Italy.
Claudia ViggianoCattedra di Pediatria, Dipartimento di Medicina, Chirurgia e Odontoiatria "Scuola Medica Salernitana", Università di Salerno , Via Allende, Baronissi (Salerno), 84081, Italy.
Francesco FasolinoCattedra di Pediatria, Dipartimento di Medicina, Chirurgia e Odontoiatria "Scuola Medica Salernitana", Università di Salerno , Via Allende, Baronissi (Salerno), 84081, Italy.
Annalisa BellopedePediatria AOU "S.Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi D'Aragona", Salerno, Italy.
Maria AnnunziataPediatria AOU "S.Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi D'Aragona", Salerno, Italy.
Grazia MassaPediatria AOU "S.Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi D'Aragona", Salerno, Italy.
Francesco Maria PepePediatria AOU "S.Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi D'Aragona", Salerno, Italy.
Maria De ChiaraPediatria AOU "S.Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi D'Aragona", Salerno, Italy.
Paolo SianiPediatria Sistematica AORN "Santobono-Pausilipon", Naples, Italy.
Pietro VajroCattedra di Pediatria, Dipartimento di Medicina, Chirurgia e Odontoiatria "Scuola Medica Salernitana", Università di Salerno , Via Allende, Baronissi (Salerno), 84081, Italy. pvajro@unisa.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe term "humanization" indicates the process by which people try to make something more human and civilized, more in line with what is believed to be the human nature. The humanization of care is an important and not yet a well-defined issue which includes a wide range of aspects related to the approach to the patient and care modalities. In pediatrics, the humanization concept is even vaguer due to the dual involvement of both the child and his/her family and by the existence of multiple proposed models.

objectiveThe present study aims to analyze the main existing humanization models regarding pediatric care, and the tools for assessing its grade.

resultsThe main Humanization care programs have been elaborated and developed both in America (Brazil, USA) and Europe. The North American and European models specifically concern pediatric care, while the model developed in Brazil is part of a broader program aimed at all age groups. The first emphasis is on the importance of the family in child care, the second emphasis is on the child's right to be a leader, to be heard and to be able to express its opinion on the program's own care. Several tools have been created and used to evaluate humanization of care programs and related aspects. None, however, had been mutually compared.

conclusionsThe major models of humanization care and the related assessment tools here reviewed highlight the urgent need for a more unifying approach, which may help in realizing health care programs closer to the young patient's and his/her family needs.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelBrazilChildChild, PreschoolFamily NursingFemaleHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CareParentingPatient CarePediatricsPhysician-Patient RelationsChild-friendly healthcareFamily centered careHumanizationPediatric care

Identifiers

PMID28854953
PMCPMC5577665

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.