Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35606161›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2022

How parents and children evaluate emollients for childhood eczema: a qualitative study.

Eileen Sutton, Alison Rg Shaw, Matthew J Ridd, Miriam Santer, Amanda Roberts, Helen Baxter, Hywel C Williams, Jonathan Banks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Qualitative research and clinical trials.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Childhood eczema: paths to optimisation of management.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Eileen SuttonBristol Population Health Sciences Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Alison Rg ShawBristol Population Health Sciences Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Matthew J RiddBristol Population Health Sciences Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Miriam SanterPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton.
Amanda RobertsNottingham Support Group for Parents of Children with Eczema, Nottingham.
Helen BaxterBristol Population Health Sciences Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Hywel C WilliamsCentre of Evidence-Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham.
Jonathan BanksPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEczema affects one in five children in the UK. Regular application of emollients is routinely recommended for children with eczema. There are four main emollient types, but no clear evidence of which is best. The current 'trial and error' approach to find suitable emollients can be frustrating for parents, children, and clinicians.

aimTo identify how parents and children experience and evaluate emollients. DESIGN AND

settingQualitative interview study, nested within a primary care trial of emollients (Best Emollients for Eczema [BEE] trial).

methodSemi-structured interviews with children with eczema and their parents were conducted. Participants were purposively sampled on emollient type (lotion, cream, gel, or ointment), age, and eczema severity.

resultsForty-four parents were interviewed, with children participating in 24 of those interviews. There was no clear preference for any one emollient type. The strongest theme was the variation of experience in each of the four types. Participants focused on thickness and absorbency, both positively and negatively, to frame their evaluations. Effectiveness and acceptability were both considered when evaluating an emollient but effectiveness was the primary driver for continued use. For some, participating in the trial had changed their knowledge and behaviour of emollients, resulting in use that was more regular and for a longer duration.

conclusionThere is no one emollient that is suitable for everyone, and parents/children prioritise different aspects of emollients. Future research could evaluate decision aids and/or tester pots of different types, which could enable clinicians and parents/children to work collaboratively to identify the best emollient for them.

Indexed as

Dermatitis, AtopicEczemaChildEmollientsHumansParentsQualitative ResearchTreatment OutcomeEmollientsdermatitis, atopiceczemaemollientsointmentspediatricsprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID35606161
PMCPMC9172216

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.