Health Care Provider and Caregiver Preferences Regarding Nasogastric and Intravenous Rehydration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite evidence supporting its use, nasogastric rehydration is rarely used in North America. We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional, 3-phase study to evaluate current perspectives. METHODS: We compared the proportions of respondents in favor of nasogastric (as opposed to intravenous) rehydration, should oral rehydration fail, between clinicians and caregivers. Phase 1: caregivers of children aged 3 to 48 months, who presented to a Canadian pediatric emergency department with symptoms of gastroenteritis, were invited to complete a survey. Phase 2: phase 1 participants administered intravenous or nasogastric rehydration had the procedure observed and outcome data recorded. Phase 3: pediatric emergency medicine physicians, fellows, and nurses completed a survey. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-five children-parent dyads and 113 health care providers participated. If oral rehydration were to fail, 10% (47 of 435) of caregivers and 14% (16 of 113) of clinicians would choose nasogastric rehydration (difference = 3.4%; 95% confidence interval: -2.8 to 11.4). Caregivers were more familiar with the term intravenous than nasogastric rehydration (80% vs 20%; P < .001). Sixty-four children (15%) received intravenous rehydration; none received nasogastric rehydration. Participating nurses have inserted 90 (interquartile range: 25-150) intravenous cannulas compared with 4 (interquartile range: 2-10) nasogastric tubes during the preceding 6 months (P < .001). After a brief educational intervention, the proportion recommending nasogastric rehydration increased to 27% (117 of 435) among caregivers (P < .001) and 43% (49 of 113) among health care providers (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In keeping with caregiver desires, health care providers in a Canadian emergency department employ intravenous rehydration when oral rehydration fails. Enhanced change management strategies will be required for nasogastric rehydration to become adopted in this environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".