4.5 Review

Parent experiences and information needs related to bronchiolitis: A mixed studies systematic review

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 102, 期 5, 页码 864-878

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.12.013

关键词

Systematic review; Child; Bronchiolitis; Parent; Experience

资金

  1. Network of Centres of Excellence in Knowledge Mobilization
  2. TREKK (TRanslating Emergency Knowledge for Kids)
  3. Women and Children's Health Research Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To inform evidence-based knowledge products (i.e., infographics, videos, eBooks) of relevance to parents, we systematically reviewed evidence on parent experiences and information needs related to bronchiolitis. Methods: We searched Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, and scanned reference lists for studies published post-2000. We appraised quality in duplicate using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) and synthesized findings narratively. Results: We retrieved 797 records and included 29; 14 (48%) met > 50% of MMAT criteria. Studies predominantly enrolled mothers. Most reported quantitatively on hospitalization experiences (n = 9, 31%), treatments (n = 5, 17%), or respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prophylaxis (n = 9, 31%). Ten (34%) studies reported on information needs; 3 contributed qualitative data. Parents could not always identify bronchiolitis symptoms. During hospitalization, parents endured guilt and anxiety. Mothers wanted to take an active role in their child's care but often felt uninvolved. Barriers to RSV prophylaxis included transportation, scheduling, and insurance issues. Conclusions: Evidence focused primarily on hospitalization, which parents found frightening. More information is needed on home care experiences and information preferences. Practice implications: Timely education and support from healthcare providers may help to alleviate parents' fears and enhance involvement in their child's care. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. 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