4.5 Article

Patterns of concordance and non-concordance with clinician recommendations and parents' explanatory models in children with asthma

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 70, 期 3, 页码 376-385

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.11.007

关键词

asthma; adherence; concordance; qualitative methods; explanatory models

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [R01 HD044070-01, K24 HD047667, R01 HD044070] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Many children with asthma do not take medications as prescribed. We studied parents of children with asthma to define patterns of non-concordance between families' use of asthma controller medications and clinicians' recommendations, examine parents' explanatory models (EMs) of asthma, and describe relationships between patterns of non-concordance and EM. Methods: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with parents of children with persistent asthma. Grounded theory analysis identified recurrent themes and relationships between reported medication use, EMs, and other factors. Results: Twelve of the 37 parents reported non-concordance with providers' recommendations. Three types of non-concordance were identified: unintentional-parents believed they were following recommendations; unplanned-parents reported intending to give controller medications but could not; and intentional-parents stated giving medication was the wrong course of action. Analysis revealed two EMs of asthma: chronic-parents believed their child always has asthma; and intermittent-parents believed asthma was a problem their child sometimes developed. Conclusions: Concordance or non-concordance with recommended use of medications were related to EM's and family context and took on three different patterns associated with medication underuse. Practice Implications: Efforts to reduce medication underuse in children with asthma may be optimized by identifying different types of non-concordance and tailoring interventions accordingly. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据