Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29270825›Full record

Observational studyEuropean journal of pediatrics2018

Provided information and parents' comprehension at the time of admission of their child in pediatric intensive care unit.

Agathe Béranger, Charlotte Pierron, Laure de Saint Blanquat, Naïm Bouazza, Sandrine Jean, Hélène Chappuy

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in European journal of pediatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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.

Agathe BérangerLaboratoire d'éthique médicale et de bioéthique, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne-Paris Cité, 45 rue des Saint-Pères, 75006, Paris, France. agathe.beranger@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9751-8249
Charlotte PierronService de réanimation et surveillance continue pédiatriques, Hôpital Robert Debré, Université Diderot-Paris 7, 48 boulevard Sérurier, 75019, Paris, France.
Laure de Saint BlanquatRéanimation et surveillance continue médico-chirurgicale pédiatriques, Hôpital Necker Enfants-Malades, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne-Paris Cité, 149 rue de Sèvres, 75015, Paris, France.
Naïm BouazzaUnité de recherche clinique, AP-HP hôpital Cochin-Necker, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne-Paris Cité, 89 rue d'Assas, 75006, Paris, France.
Sandrine JeanRéanimation néonatale et pédiatrique, Hôpital Armand Trousseau, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 26 avenue du Dr Arnold Netter, 75012, Paris, France.
Hélène ChappuyUnité de recherche clinique, AP-HP hôpital Cochin-Necker, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne-Paris Cité, 89 rue d'Assas, 75006, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluated the first interaction (FI) between parents and health care providers at the time of admission of a child in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU), and explored the extent to which parents understood the medical information. This prospective study took place in three French university-affiliated PICUs. Forty-two parents of 30 children were interviewed. The physician and nurse who took care of the child completed a questionnaire. We evaluated parents' comprehension (excellent, fair, or poor) by comparing parents' and physicians' responses to six items: diagnosis, affected organ, reason for hospitalization, prognosis, treatments, and further investigations. Parent-physician FI occurred within 24 h of child's admission. Two thirds of the parents were dissatisfied to wait before receiving information. Most of the parents had an excellent comprehension of the affected organ (n = 25/28, 89.3%) and prognosis (n = 26/30, 86.7%). Two thirds of the parents understood the reason for hospitalization (n = 18/28, 64.3%) and diagnosis (n = 19/30, 63.3%). Less than half the parents understood child's treatments (n = 10/30, 33.3%) and further investigations (n = 8/21, 38.1%). When a nurse delivered information on treatment, parental comprehension improved (p = 0.053).

conclusionParents complained of their wait time before receiving information. Most of them had an excellent comprehension. An improved communication between nurses and physicians is mandatory, and the active participation of nurses to give information to the parents should be encouraged. What is known: • In pediatric intensive care unit, health care providers deliver information to parents on their child's condition, which fosters the trust between them to build a partnership. • Various guidelines exist to help health care providers communicate with parents in PICU, but never mention the specific time of admission. What is new: • Even though parents could wait before entering the unit, they all received information on their child's condition within 24 hours after admission. • Parents understood the information well, and nurses improved the parental comprehension of the treatments by reformulating.

Indexed as

ComprehensionHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeIntensive Care Units, PediatricProfessional-Family RelationsAdultFemaleFranceHumansMaleMiddle AgedParentsProspective StudiesTime FactorsCommunicationComprehensionCritically illInteractionMeeting

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.