Caregiver knowledge and attitudes relating to paediatric pneumonia and antimicrobial stewardship: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to understand caregiver perspectives and experiences relating to the treatment of paediatric community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: This was a phenomenological qualitative study involving interviews with caregivers of young children in Hamilton, Ontario. Caregivers were asked open-ended questions relating to germ theory, pneumonia and the role of antibiotic treatment. The principles of conventional content analysis guided the coding and synthesis of the transcribed interviews. RESULTS: Eleven caregivers were interviewed. Many knew that antibiotics were not effective against all types of infections and stated that there was an increased risk of developing resistance with frequent use. However, there were misconceptions that probiotics effectively mitigated antibiotic side effects, and few were familiar with the potential long-term consequences of antibiotic use in children.There was variability in the perceived severity of paediatric CAP. Some participants thought that antibiotic treatment would accelerate recovery and prevent caregivers from feeling helpless. However, others 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/benefits would be desirable to counteract feelings of helplessness that result from being sent home without a prescription. CONCLUSION: Recognising 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 emergency department. Care strategies informed by caregiver experiences can improve parent-provider communication and reduce antibiotic misuse.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".