Refinement of an instrument to evaluate parental attitudes about follow-up care after an acute emergency department visit for asthma.
ABSTRACT Prompt follow-up after emergency department (ED) care for asthma allows the primary care provider (PCP) and family to review factors that led to the ED visit, update current care plans, and plan for prevention of future exacerbations.
The Initial Questionnaire to assess parental impressions of Pros and Cons of follow-up was administered to parents who brought their children to the ED for treatment of an acute asthma exacerbation (N = 309). After a planned interim analysis, 19 new items were generated, and this Expanded Questionnaire was given to 198 parents. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to identify well-defined items and discard ambiguous and confusing items.
PCA of the Expanded Questionnaire revealed 18 of 43 items related to four dimensions of parents' Pros and Cons for obtaining follow-up care. Four distinct categories were identified: two Pros and two Cons. Pro items related to practical things parents get from a follow-up visit and to positive parental beliefs about follow-up care. Con items emphasized practical considerations that make it difficult to go to a follow-up visit and identified the misconception that follow-up is not necessary for asymptomatic children. In addition, two distinct clusters of parents were identified: those that value and those that do not value follow-up care.
We developed an 18-item measure that assesses Pros and Cons of follow-up care for asthma following emergency care, which has four reliable factors: Pro Practical, Pro Attitude, Con Practical, and Con Attitude. This questionnaire may help guide interventions to change perceptions of the need for follow-up. Attention to increasing Pros among those who are reluctant to attend follow-up care may be especially effective.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Acute exacerbations of childhood asthma are frequently managed in the emergency department (ED). ED-based surveillance and intervention projects highlight the limitations and challenges of acute and chronic childhood asthma management. Because a significant number of asthmatic children currently receive and will likely continue to seek acute asthma care in the ED, provision of asthma education and initiation of controller medication therapy during the ED visit, although controversial, may contribute to improving asthma outcomes and eventually to reducing the burden of asthma on our overcrowded EDs.Current Allergy and Asthma Reports 12/2006; 6(6):462-7. DOI:10.1007/s11882-006-0022-7 · 2.45 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A new paediatric mucositis assessment instrument, the Children's International Mucositis Evaluation Scale (ChIMES), has required several phases of development. A draft of ChIMES was developed that required further refinement. This paper describes two iterations of refinements of ChIMES using child and parent reporting of understandability, content validity and overall acceptability. Parents, children and teenagers were asked to rate their opinion of understandability and overall acceptability of ChIMES on a five-point ordinal scale. Content validity was assessed by whether participants considered the instrument "good", "okay" or "bad". Descriptive analysis of the results was conducted. One hundred and twenty-two participants evaluated two iterations. On the initial evaluation, ChIMES was considered easy to understand, acceptable and have content validity. However, minor amendments were required and a further iteration of testing was necessary to achieve a satisfactory instrument. A final version of ChIMES was developed. Modification of each draft of ChIMES was performed until comments were minimal and the scores from participants were consistently high. A final instrument appeared to contain the correct content and was easy to understand by parents, older children and teenagers.European journal of oncology nursing: the official journal of European Oncology Nursing Society 11/2009; 14(1):29-41. DOI:10.1016/j.ejon.2009.10.004 · 1.13 Impact Factor