MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389029628 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofad500.1495

1662. Perspectives of Caregivers of Children with Community-Acquired Pneumonia in the Emergency Department: A Qualitative Study

2023· article· en· W4389029628 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lara Murphy, Nelson Huang, Sujane Kandasamy, Gita Wahi, Jeffrey M. Pernica

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingMedicineEmergency departmentPneumoniaQualitative researchAntibioticsGrounded theoryFamily medicineIntensive care medicinePediatricsPsychiatryPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Despite the fact that paediatric community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is usually caused by viruses, antibiotics are often prescribed. The objective of this study was to understand caregiver perspectives and experiences relating to the treatment of paediatric CAP. Methods This was a phenomenologically-informed qualitative study involving interviews with caregivers of young children in Hamilton, Ontario. Caregivers were interviewed with open-ended questions relating to germ theory, the nature of pneumonia, and the role of antibiotic treatment. The principles of conventional content analysis were used to guide the coding and synthesis of the transcribed interviews. Results Eleven caregivers were interviewed. Most had a good understanding of the difference between bacteria and viruses and many knew that antibiotics were not effective against all types of infections. Many also stated that there was an increased risk of developing resistance with frequent antibiotic use. However, there were misconceptions that probiotics effectively mitigated antibiotic side effects and few were familiar with the potential long-term impacts of antibiotic use in children. There was variability in the perceived severity of paediatric CAP. For children sick enough to require treatment in the emergency department (ED), some participants thought that antibiotic treatment would be important to prescribe to accelerate recovery, as well as to prevent caregivers from feeling helpless. However, participants also thought it was inappropriate for physicians to prescribe antibiotics solely to make the caregiver feel better. Many caregivers also felt strongly that clinical follow-up and discussions on treatment risks and benefits would be desirable and might counteract feelings of helplessness that might result from being sent home without a prescription. Conclusion Recognizing that parents may have misperceptions about antibiotic use for CAP (and may seek antibiotics without strong rationale) can inform clinicians’ efforts to better educate and support caregivers in the ED. Care strategies informed by caregiver experiences can improve parent-provider communication, increase trust in the attending clinician, and reduce antibiotic misuse. Disclosures Jeffrey Pernica, MD, MSc, FRCPC, DTMH, MedImmune: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Grant/Research Support

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207