• CMAJ · Jan 2003

    Parents' responses to symptoms of respiratory tract infection in their children.

    • Norman R Saunders, Olwen Tennis, Sheila Jacobson, Marvin Gans, and Paul T Dick.
    • Department of Pediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. norman.saunders@utoronto.ca
    • CMAJ. 2003 Jan 7;168(1):25-30.

    BackgroundLittle is known about the determinants of parental response when children appear to have a respiratory tract infection (RTI). Our objective was to identify what factors predict that parents will seek medical consultation.MethodsIn a prospective cohort study we consecutively recruited 400 children aged 2 months to 12 years from the urban, largely middle-class, primary-care practices of 7 pediatricians in Toronto. Baseline demographic data were collected and the children followed by telephone inquiry until an RTI developed or 6 months elapsed. Data about any medical consultation for the RTI were collected. The parents completed a questionnaire on clinical features and parental interpretations and concerns. Potential predictors of consultation were organized into 4 domains: family factors, principal complaints, functional burden of illness (determined with a validated measure, the Canadian Acute Respiratory Illness and Flu Scale [CARIFS]) and parental interpretation of the illness. Key variables for each domain were derived by endorsement, correlation and combination, and univariate association with the outcome (medical consultation). A model was created to identify independent predictors of consultation.ResultsOf the 383 children (96%) for whom the study was completed, 275 (72%) had symptoms of an RTI within 6 months after recruitment. Medical consultation was sought for 140 (56%) of the 251 for whom further data were available. The questionnaire data and follow up were complete for 197 (78%) of the 251. Children with earaches compared to children without were more likely to be taken to a physician (odds ratio [OR] 10.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.8-37.4), as were children with high fever (temperature > 40 degrees C) compared to children with no fever or fever < or = 40 degrees C (OR 3.2; 95% CI 1.2-8.6). Parents who rated their children as having a complaint that was severe or persisting for more than 24 hours were more likely to see a physician than parents who rated their children as having no complaints (OR 8.5; 95% CI 2.3-32.0). Parental concern that the illness had an unusual course, with prolonged duration or deterioration (OR 5.7; 95% CI 1.3-24.8), that the child had a specific illness (OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.1-7.7) or that specific treatment was needed (OR 5.0; 95% CI 1.1-23.1), compared to children with no illnesses or need for treatment, also predicted consultation with a physician. Parents' postsecondary education (OR 4.0; 95% CI 1.1-14.6), compared to parents with less than postsecondary education, was the only parental factor that independently predicted taking a child to see a physician. Child's age 48 months or less was the only child factor that independently predicted physician consultation (0-6 months, OR 9.2, 95% CI 1.4-58.1; 7-12 months, OR 17.3, 95% CI 2.0-147.2; 13-24 months, OR 9.2, 95% CI 1.3-63.6; 25-48 months, OR 5.2, 95% CI 0.8-34.4). Neither family demographics nor functional burden of illness predicted consultation.InterpretationGenerally, parents choose reasonable criteria for seeking physician advice. However, their perceptions and interpretations may be based in part on limited understanding of some factors. Further research is necessary to determine how these findings can be used to improve anticipatory guidance to parents and better address parental concerns.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…