1650. Caregiver Perspectives on Educational Materials Used for Paediatric Community-Acquired Pneumonia and Antibiotic Stewardship in the Emergency Department: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The objective of this study was to determine the best modality for educating caregivers on paediatric community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and antibiotic stewardship within the emergency department (ED) setting. This was to inform the design of educational materials used in a prospective study (PIONEER study, NCT 05114161) testing a novel care pathway for treating non-severe paediatric CAP that aims to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions. Methods This was a phenomenologically-informed qualitative study involving interviews with caregivers of young children in Hamilton, Ontario. Caregivers were presented with four educational materials on appropriate antibiotic prescribing for paediatric pneumonia management. The four materials included: a video of a physician presenting the information, a caregiver discussing her own experiences with antibiotic use for her children, an animated video with audio alongside written information and illustrations, and a brochure. Following this, participants were asked open-ended questions about how they felt about the effectiveness of the materials shown. Results Eleven caregivers were interviewed. Most caregivers preferred the combination of the animated video and brochure to the use of either the didactic physician or caregiver video. Participants reported that the stress of the ED environment may hinder their ability to easily process information in the moment. As such, some participants preferred the simpler visuals of the animated video as well as the brochure which they could refer to following their child’s discharge. One caregiver expressed a desire for increasing the diversity of racial identities represented in the educational materials. Although our study focused on paediatric CAP, these findings may have implications in the larger context of caregiver education in the ED. Conclusion The findings from this study emphasize the importance of providing clear and concise information to caregivers in the ED environment. Educational aids with simple visuals and concise information which can be referenced following the ED visit are preferred. Additionally, increasing diversity in educational materials can help promote a more inclusive care experience. 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 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 | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".