MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803477742 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxy054.023

INTERVENTIONS TO ASSIST PARENTS IN ACCURATELY DOSING LIQUID MEDICATIONS FOR THEIR CHILDREN: A SCOPING REVIEW

2018· review· en· W2803477742 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Feng Pan, Katrina Hurley, Janet Curran, Eleanor Fitzpatrick

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionCINAHLDosingMedicineCritical appraisalMEDLINEHealth careThematic analysisFamily medicineInclusion (mineral)Systematic reviewAlternative medicinePsychologyNursingQualitative researchPathologyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Parents’ inaccurate dosing of liquid medications for their children is common, resulting in treatment failure and potential adverse effects. Educational interventions delivered by health care professionals are a means to help parents properly administer liquid medications. OBJECTIVES This scoping review was conducted to identify and describe empirically researched educational interventions that prevent inaccurate dosing of liquid medications by parents of children less than 12 years old. DESIGN/METHODS We conducted a scoping review using the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodology for Scoping Reviews. With assistance from a library scientist, we searched PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science for English-language articles published before June 2017. We also looked at the reference lists of the included articles and subsequent articles that have cited them to identify additional studies (forward and backward searching). Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved titles and abstracts using predetermined criteria. Only quantitative, empirically designed studies that examined interventions delivered by health care professionals to help parents of children under 12 years old to accurately dose liquid medications were included. We appraised the quality of the included articles using the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) and conducted a thematic analysis to identify trends and patterns. RESULTS Of the 180 abstracts identified in the search strategy, 9 studies met our inclusion criteria. We identified four main types of interventions: 1. use of visual aids (n=6); 2. use of advanced counselling strategies (n=2); 3. use of standardized measuring tools (n=3); and, 4. use of standardized units of measurement (n=2). Some studies evaluated more than one type of intervention. The overall quality of the included studies was moderate, with 11.1% (n=1) scoring 0.25, 33.3% (n=3) scoring 0.50, 55.6% (n=5) scoring 0.75, and none scoring 1.0. CONCLUSION Dosing accuracy of liquid medication for children by their parents is an important topic. More high quality studies conducted by a variety of research groups are needed to ensure the development and implementation of effective evidence-based educational interventions. There is a lack of standardization in the definition of a dosing error. Consensus regarding a standard definition would help studies be more comparable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.099
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.099
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0150.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207