4.2 Article

Home enteral tube feeding in children following percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: perceptions of parents, paediatric dietitians and paediatric nurses

Journal

JOURNAL OF HUMAN NUTRITION AND DIETETICS
Volume 20, Issue 5, Pages 431-439

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-277X.2007.00811.x

Keywords

decision making; healthcare professionals; home enteral tube feeding; parents; perceptions; percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The perceptions of parents and professionals are important in deciding to feed children by gastrostomy, yet there are few published studies in this field. This study explored and compared the perceptions of parents to those of paediatric outreach nurses and paediatric dietitians. Methods: A cross-sectional mixed-method study with purposive sampling was undertaken using structured interviews and questionnaires to explore perceptions of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy ( PEG) placement and feeding. Binomial regression was used to investigate differences in perceptions across the groups of participants. Results: Parents, paediatric outreach nurses and dietitians shared similar perceptions regarding success of feeding, support for gastrostomy reinsertion and the acceptability of the child's quality of life. Much greater differences in perceptions were evident regarding the parents' involvement in the decision-making process for PEG placement and the adequacy of the support received from healthcare professionals. Conclusions: A high level of support for feeding was demonstrated together with strong perceptions across all groups that feeding was successful. It is important for healthcare professionals to consider the perceptions of the parents throughout decision making and provision of care following PEG placement because it is highly likely there will be differences in the perceptions between parents and healthcare professionals.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available