Suppr超能文献

从腭裂患儿家长的角度看通气管和助听器的风险与益处。

Risks and benefits of ventilation tubes and hearing aids from the perspective of parents of children with cleft palate.

作者信息

Tierney S, O'Brien K, Harman N L, Madden C, Sharma R K, Callery P

机构信息

University of Manchester (Healing Foundation Centre for Cleft Craniofacial Research), United Kingdom.

出版信息

Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013 Oct;77(10):1742-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.08.006. Epub 2013 Aug 14.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To understand parents' experiences of treatment of otitis media with effusion (OME) for children with cleft palate.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews with parents of 37 children who had non-syndromic cleft palate (with or without cleft lip). They were recruited from two cleft centres in northern England. Participants talked about choices, information, decision-making and satisfaction with ventilation tubes (VTs) and/or hearing aids (HAs). Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Themes were developed using Framework Analysis.

RESULTS

VTs and HAs were not considered as equal treatments by interviewees, due to physical risks associated with the former and social consequences with the latter. The inequality was explained within three main themes: (1) treatment recommendations - most parents did not recall being offered options when OME was first treated; VTs tended to be presented initially followed by HAs if VTs had been inserted more than once. Treatment recommendations came from medical specialists, although participants could also be influenced by other parents' stories; (2) beliefs about mechanisms of treatments - interviewees believed VTs could address the underlying cause of OME by draining fluid. Some parents felt HAs signified a deterioration in hearing and an escalation of care. Improvements in hearing were reported by interviewees with VTs and HAs; (3) demands on parents - participants often saw the insertion of VTs as opportunistic, alongside another procedure (e.g. palatal closure). They could feel disappointed when VTs fell out or were perceived to have caused ear infections. Parental involvement was on-going for HAs (e.g. ordering batteries and tubes). Parents expressed fears about the potential for social stigma of HAs, although none reported significant teasing of children because they wore HAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents' views about treatment for OME were shaped by differing perceptions about anticipated risks and benefits. VTs may have been seen as a simple fix, inserted alongside another procedure, but some interviewees had concerns about possible physical consequences. Others were more worried about anticipated social stigma associated with HAs. However, parents of children who wore a HA described them as easy to manage and well tolerated, at least until children got older and started to comment on their appearance.

摘要

目的

了解腭裂患儿家长对分泌性中耳炎(OME)治疗的体验。

方法

对37名非综合征性腭裂(伴或不伴唇裂)患儿的家长进行定性访谈。他们是从英格兰北部的两个腭裂治疗中心招募的。参与者谈论了关于通气管(VTs)和/或助听器(HAs)的选择、信息、决策以及满意度。访谈进行了录音并逐字转录。使用框架分析法提炼主题。

结果

由于通气管存在身体风险,助听器存在社会影响,受访者并不认为两者是同等的治疗方式。这种不平等在三个主要主题中得到了解释:(1)治疗建议——大多数家长回忆说在首次治疗OME时没有被告知有多种选择;如果多次插入通气管,通常最初会推荐使用通气管,之后才是助听器。治疗建议来自医学专家,不过参与者也可能受到其他家长故事的影响;(2)对治疗机制的看法——受访者认为通气管可以通过排出液体来解决OME的根本原因。一些家长觉得助听器意味着听力恶化和护理升级。使用通气管和助听器的受访者都报告了听力有所改善;(3)对家长的要求——参与者常常认为插入通气管是与其他手术(如腭裂修复)同时进行的机会性操作。当通气管脱落或被认为引发耳部感染时,他们可能会感到失望。对于助听器,家长需要持续参与(如订购电池和耳管)。家长们表达了对助听器可能带来社会污名的担忧,不过没有人报告孩子因为佩戴助听器而受到严重的取笑。

结论

家长对OME治疗的看法受到对预期风险和益处的不同认知的影响。通气管可能被视为一种简单的解决办法,与其他手术同时进行,但一些受访者担心可能产生的身体后果。其他人则更担心与助听器相关的预期社会污名。然而,佩戴助听器患儿的家长表示,至少在孩子长大并开始对自己的外表发表评论之前,助听器易于管理且耐受性良好。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验