Parental views of antibiotic use in children with upper respiratory tract infections in Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the knowledge, attitudes and practices of parents towards antibiotics use for upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) in Jordan.Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out at 10 private outpatients' pediatric clinics across Amman-Jordan from September to December 2013.During the study period, 1329 parents of young children who fulfilled the inclusion criteria and agreed to participate were interviewed, and completed a validated structured questionnaire.Results: A large proportion of parents (903, 68 %) believed that weather change was the main cause of acute URTIs in their children.Although 1098 (82.8 %) of parents were aware that the recurrent use of antibiotics leads to a decrease in effectiveness due to bacterial resistance, 859 (64.6 %) of the respondents reported that they would give antibiotics without prescription.Fathers (135, 40.2 %), were significantly more aware that URTIs follow its natural course without antibiotic administration compared to mothers (N = 327, 32.9 %), respectively (p = 0.005). Conclusion:There is a lack of adequate parental knowledge concerning the use and misuse of antibiotics in children in Jordan.National publicity campaign should be mounted to improve awareness.Furthermore, existing laws should be enforced to prevent parents from purchasing antibiotics over-thecounter (OTC).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".