ArticleBMJ open2024
Clinician and parent views on urine collection in precontinent children in the UK: a qualitative interview study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- UPLC-MS/MS High-Risk Screening for Sphingolipidoses Using Dried Urine Spots.Biomolecules · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the experiences of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and parents of urine collection methods, to identify barriers to successful sampling and what could improve the process.
designQualitative research, using individual semistructured interviews with HCPs and parents. The interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed and thematically analysed.
settingUK-based HCPs from primary and secondary care settings and parents with experience with urine collection in primary and/or secondary care settings.
participantsHCPs who were involved in aiding, supervising or ordering urine samples. Parents who had experience with urine collection in at least one precontinent child.
results13 HCPs and 16 parents were interviewed. 2 participating HCPs were general practitioners (GPs), 11 worked in paediatric secondary care settings (8 were nurses and 3 were doctors). Two parents had children with underlying conditions where frequent urine collection was required to rule out infections.HCPs and parents reported that there were no straightforward methods of urine collection for precontinent children. Each method-'clean catch', urine bag and urine pad-had limitations and problems with usage. 'Clean catch', regarded as the gold standard by HCPs with a lower risk of contamination, often proved difficult for parents to achieve. Other methods had elevated risk of contamination but were more acceptable to parents because they were less challenging. Many of the parents expressed the need for more information about urine collection.
conclusionsCurrent methods of urine collection are challenging to use and may be prone to contamination. A new device is required to assist with urine collection in precontinent children, to simplify and reduce the stress of the situation for those involved. Parents are key partners in the process of urine collection with young children. Meeting their expressed need for more information could be an important way to achieve better-quality samples while awaiting a new device.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.