The Practice of Pediatric Sleep Medicine: Results of a Community Survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To assess knowledge, screening, evaluation, treatment practices, and attitudes regarding sleep disorders in children and adolescents in a large sample of community-based and academic pediatricians. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred twenty-six pediatricians in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. INTRUMENT: The Pediatric Sleep Survey, a 42-item questionnaire assessing general and specific sleep knowledge categories; clinical screening, diagnostic, and treatment practices for common pediatric sleep disorders; and practitioner attitudes regarding the impact of sleep disorders in the clinical setting and as a public health issue. RESULTS: On the knowledge section, the mean Total Knowledge score for the respondents was 18.1 +/- 3.5 out of 30 items, with 23.5% of the sample responding correctly on half or less of the items. Pediatricians scored highest on items relating to developmental and behavioral aspects of sleep and parasomnias, whereas the mean percentage of correct responses was <50% for items relating to sleep disordered breathing, excessive daytime sleepiness, and sleep movement disorders. Although only 16.5% and 18.2% of the sample reported not screening routinely for sleep disorders in infants and toddlers, this percentage rose to 43.9% in adolescents. Furthermore, only 38.3% regularly question the adolescents themselves about their sleep. Only about one quarter of the respondents screen toddlers and school-aged children for snoring. In evaluating and treating pediatric sleep problems, 53.2% of the sample never or rarely order overnight sleep studies to assess for obstructive sleep apnea and few use alternative treatment strategies, such as continuous positive airway pressure. A quarter of the sample at least occasionally recommends diphenhydramine and almost half suggests a psychological evaluation for children with night terrors. Finally, the percent of pediatricians rating the impact on children of sleep problems in a variety of domains as important or very important ranged from 49.7% (nonintentional injuries) to 92.6% (academic performance). However, only 46% of the sample felt confident or very confident about their own ability to screen for sleep problems, whereas 34.2% and 25.3% similarly rated their ability to evaluate and treat sleep problems in children. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey suggest that there are still significant gaps among practicing pediatricians both in basic knowledge about pediatric sleep disorders, and in the translation of that knowledge into clinical practice. Despite their acknowledgment of the importance of sleep problems, many pediatricians fail to screen adequately for them, especially in older children and adolescents. Additional educational efforts regarding pediatric sleep issues are warranted, and should be targeted at the medical school, postgraduate training, and continuing medical education levels.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».