Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38427037›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of pediatrics2024

In-person versus electronic screening for social risks among carers of pediatric inpatients: A mixed methods randomized trial.

Lisa Gaye Smithers, Catherine MacPhail, Lily Chan, Maeve Downes, Kate Neadley, Mark Boyd

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Lisa Gaye SmithersSchool of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Northfields Road, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia. lsmithers@uow.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6585-7836
Catherine MacPhailSchool of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Northfields Road, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0614-0157
Lily ChanSchool of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Maeve DownesNorthern Adelaide Local Health Network, Elizabeth Vale, SA, Australia.
Kate NeadleyAdelaide Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Mark BoydAdelaide Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6848-3307
The University of Adelaide · AUUniversity of Wollongong · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aimed to compare disclosure of social risks according to self-report on an iPad versus face-to-face questions from a health professional and to explore carers' experiences of screening. This two-arm, parallel group, randomized trial was conducted from January 19, 2021, to December 17, 2021, in a public hospital pediatric ward serving a disadvantaged area of an Australian capital city. Carers of children aged ≤ 5 years admitted to the Children's Ward were eligible. The primary outcome was disclosure of social risks. The screener included nine items on food security, household utilities, transport, employment, personal and neighborhood safety, social support, housing and homelessness. Disclosure of social risks was similar between the self-completion (n = 193) and assisted-completion (n = 193) groups for all 9 items, ranging 4.1% higher for worrying about money for food (95% CI - 11.4, 3.1%) among the assisted-completion group, to 5.7% (-1.6, 13.0%) higher for unemployment among the self-completion group. In qualitative interviews, participants were positive about screening for social risks in the hospital ward setting and the majority indicated a preference for self-completion.  Conclusion: Differences in the disclosure of social risks according to self- versus assisted-completion were small, suggesting that either method could be used. Most carers expressed a preference for self- completion, which is therefore recommended as the ideal mode for such data collection for Australian pediatric inpatient settings.  Trial registration: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ( www.anzctry.org.au ; #ACTRN12620001326987; date of registration 8 December 2020). What is Known: • Most evidence on screening of social risks in pediatric inpatient settings is from the USA. • Little is known about disclosure of social risks in countries with universal health care and social welfare. What is New: • Disclosure of social risks was similar for electronic compared with face-to-face screening. • Carers preferred electronic completion over face-to-face completion.

Indexed as

CaregiversAdultAustraliaChild, PreschoolDisclosureFemaleHumansInfantInpatientsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedSelf ReportSocial SupportMixed methodsPediatricsScreening modalitySocial determinants of healthSocial disadvantageSocial risks

Identifiers

PMID38427037
PMCPMC11035429
OpenAlexW4392353248

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.