Family History-Taking in Paediatrics: It’s Much More Than Just A Checklist
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract BACKGROUND: Family history (FH) is a risk factor for many conditions in pediatric practice; interest has increased in supporting systematic FH taking in this area by identifying core conditions for enquiry and developing point of care tools. There is little published about current practice to inform implementing such changes. OBJECTIVES: To inform future FH taking interventions by identifying pediatricians' perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and current practices. DESIGN/METHODS: The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to develop a comprehensive interview scheme. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with community and hospital-based pediatricians Analysis was by the constant comparison method, using a thematic approach. This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. RESULTS: The data revealed FH taking to be a firmly embedded, but complex aspect of pediatric practice. Participants described FH as part of regular, holistic care, extending to social and interpersonal, as well as clinical purposes; in addition to disease risk assessment, FH information helped clarify diagnosis, and select medication; tailor the overall patient management based on family circumstances; and provide psychosocial support for parents. It was also used as a method to build a relationship with parents/carers. FH and social history information were inextricably linked and often appeared to be the same concept in participants’ minds. Participating pediatricians generally expressed confidence in their FH skills and reported tailoring their approach according to experience, after initial training early in their career. While acknowledging some challenges in ensuring accuracy, they were attuned to nuances in their interactions with parents and children which would affect whether, and what, they were told about illness in the family. Most were not concerned about formal evidence, and would not change their practice except for “good reason”. CONCLUSION: The use of the TDF helped ensure a comprehensive approach to FH taking in pediatric practice. The findings suggest that FH taking in this setting is a complex activity, embedded in routine care. Recommendations for systematic enquiry about specific conditions cannot be seen as a simple additional activity to current practice. Efforts to make FH taking more systematic may founder if they fail to take into account pediatricians’ attitudes, perspectives, and practices. Further studies should explore and seek to confirm and expand our observations.
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 | 0,026 | 0,081 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
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 ».