MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051096524 · doi:10.1001/archpedi.154.2.180

Child Care Center Staff Contribute to Physician Visits and Pressure for Antibiotic Prescription

2000· article· en· W2051096524 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sue Skull, Elizabeth Ford-Jones, Thomas R. Einarson, Elaine E. L. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPediatric health and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionRespiratory tract infectionsReferralFamily medicinePediatricsUpper respiratory tract infectionTelephone surveyEmergency medicineNursingInternal medicineRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether child care center (CCC) providers contribute to unnecessary physician referrals and antibiotic prescriptions in young children with upper respiratory tract infections. DESIGN: A survey using a structured telephone questionnaire between May 3, 1998, and July 27, 1998. PARTICIPANTS: Child care center providers from randomly selected licensed Ontario CCCs accepting diapered children. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Knowledge, attitudes, and practices concerning physician referral; exclusion; and antibiotic use for children with upper respiratory tract infections. Indications for exclusion were compared with published Canadian guidelines. RESULTS: Contact was made with 42 eligible CCCs to obtain the requisite number of 36 participants (participation rate, 86%). Of the 36 centers, staff reported advising that children visit a physician for colored nasal discharge in 28 (78%), for productive cough in 23 (64%), and for unusual behavior in 9 (25%). Also of the 36 centers, staff reported excluding children for colored nasal discharge in 20 (56%), for productive cough in 16 (44%), and for unusual behavior in 15 (42%). Antibiotics were thought useful for nonspecific upper respiratory tract infections to prevent the spread of infection in 9 (26%), to speed up recovery in 7 (21%), and to prevent bacterial infection in 13 (38%) of 34 centers. In the previous 6 months, 25 (69%) of 36 staff members reported making an exception to exclusion because a child had an antibiotic prescription. CONCLUSIONS: Many children are referred by CCC staff to physicians contrary to established guidelines. As staff must act on behalf of parents, a low threshold for referral is not unreasonable. However, this survey confirms that CCC staff recommend children to receive antibiotics and exclude children inappropriately. These practices are based on incomplete knowledge. Research on appropriate management of upper respiratory tract infections by CCC staff is needed. Education to correct specific knowledge deficits should be initiated.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Pediatrics and Adolescent MedicineSame topicPediatric health and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207