• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

对汽车安全座椅耐受性筛查的依从性因适应证和患者特征而异。

Adherence to Car Seat Tolerance Screening Differs by Indication and Patient Characteristics.

机构信息

Department of Pediatrics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

出版信息

Matern Child Health J. 2021 Nov;25(11):1707-1716. doi: 10.1007/s10995-021-03220-5. Epub 2021 Aug 17.

DOI:10.1007/s10995-021-03220-5
PMID:34403071
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8369874/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether adherence to institutional car seat tolerance screening (CSTS) guidelines differed for infants born preterm (PTM), term low birth weight (T-LBW), or both preterm and low birth weight (P-LBW), and to examine the association between CSTS adherence and patient characteristics.

STUDY DESIGN

Within two large academic and community hospitals, we retrospectively reviewed all infants meeting institutional criteria (< 37 weeks' gestation and/or < 2.27 kg) for CSTS from 2014 to 2018. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association of patient characteristics with institutional CSTS guideline adherence.

RESULTS

4374 eligible infants were born PTM (50.9%), T-LBW (6.5%), or P-LBW (42.6%). Adherence rates were 92.7% in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and 95.2% in the well-baby nursery with initial CSTS failure rates of 6.1% and 9.9%, respectively. Adherence was lowest among T-LBW (80.7%) compared to PTM (95.1%) or P-LBW (92.2%) infants in the NICU (p < 0.001) and well-baby nursery (81.6%, 96.7% and 97.1%, respectively, p < 0.001). In bivariate analyses, gestational age, birth weight, insurance, race, hospital type, discharge year, and preferred language were associated with adherence. In fully-adjusted models, adherence was positively associated with lower gestational age, higher birth weight, non-Medicaid insurance, and later discharge year (NICU) and lower gestational age and later discharge year (well-baby nursery).

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence was lower for T-LBW than PTM or P-LBW infants, despite similar CSTS failure rates. Disparities in adherence among Medicaid-insured patients in the NICU warrant further study. Future studies are needed to clarify the benefit of CSTS and increase adherence in high-risk populations.

摘要

目的

评估机构汽车座椅耐受筛查(CSTS)指南的遵循情况是否因早产儿(PTM)、足月低体重儿(T-LBW)或两者均为早产儿和低体重儿(P-LBW)而有所不同,并检查 CSTS 遵循情况与患者特征之间的关联。

研究设计

在两家大型学术和社区医院中,我们回顾性审查了 2014 年至 2018 年期间符合机构 CSTS 标准的所有婴儿(<37 周妊娠和/或<2.27 公斤)。多变量逻辑回归评估了患者特征与机构 CSTS 指南遵循情况的关联。

结果

4374 名符合条件的婴儿为 PTM(50.9%)、T-LBW(6.5%)或 P-LBW(42.6%)。在新生儿重症监护病房(NICU)和婴儿保健病房中,初始 CSTS 失败率分别为 6.1%和 9.9%,遵循率分别为 92.7%和 95.2%。在 NICU 中,T-LBW(80.7%)的依从率最低,低于 PTM(95.1%)或 P-LBW(92.2%)婴儿(p<0.001),在婴儿保健病房中,T-LBW(81.6%、96.7%和 97.1%)的依从率也较低,分别为 96.7%和 97.1%(均为 p<0.001)。在单变量分析中,胎龄、出生体重、保险、种族、医院类型、出院年份和首选语言与依从性相关。在完全调整的模型中,依从性与较低的胎龄、较高的出生体重、非医疗补助保险和较晚的出院年份(NICU)以及较低的胎龄和较晚的出院年份(婴儿保健病房)呈正相关。

结论

尽管 CSTS 失败率相似,但 T-LBW 婴儿的依从性低于 PTM 或 P-LBW 婴儿。NICU 中 Medicaid 保险患者的依从性差异值得进一步研究。需要进一步研究阐明 CSTS 的益处并提高高危人群的依从性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e92e/8369874/0ae9814a1b51/10995_2021_3220_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e92e/8369874/b43034467be6/10995_2021_3220_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e92e/8369874/0ae9814a1b51/10995_2021_3220_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e92e/8369874/b43034467be6/10995_2021_3220_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e92e/8369874/0ae9814a1b51/10995_2021_3220_Fig2_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Adherence to Car Seat Tolerance Screening Differs by Indication and Patient Characteristics.对汽车安全座椅耐受性筛查的依从性因适应证和患者特征而异。
Matern Child Health J. 2021 Nov;25(11):1707-1716. doi: 10.1007/s10995-021-03220-5. Epub 2021 Aug 17.
2
Recent Trends in Infant Car Seat Tolerance Screening Failure Within a Large Health Care System, 2014-2018.2014 - 2018年大型医疗保健系统内婴儿汽车座椅耐受性筛查失败的近期趋势
Hosp Pediatr. 2019 Oct;9(10):813-817. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2019-0078. Epub 2019 Sep 16.
3
Getting Babies Safely Home: A Retrospective Chart Review of Car Safety Seat Tolerance Screening Outcomes.安全接婴回家:汽车安全座椅耐受性筛查结果的回顾性图表审查。
Acad Pediatr. 2021 Nov-Dec;21(8):1355-1362. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2021.02.012. Epub 2021 Feb 22.
4
Car Seat Screening for Low Birth Weight Term Neonates.低出生体重足月儿的汽车座椅筛查
Pediatrics. 2015 Jul;136(1):89-96. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-3527. Epub 2015 Jun 15.
5
Discontinuation of Car Seat Tolerance Screening and Postdischarge Adverse Outcomes in Infants Born Preterm.停止婴儿汽车座椅耐受筛查与早产儿出院后不良结局
J Pediatr. 2023 Oct;261:113577. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2023.113577. Epub 2023 Jun 22.
6
The Association Between Routine Car Seat Screening and Subsequent Health Care Utilization.常规汽车安全座椅筛查与后续医疗保健利用之间的关联。
Hosp Pediatr. 2022 Nov 1;12(11):913-922. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2021-006509.
7
Car Seat Tolerance Screening in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Failure Rates, Risk Factors, and Adverse Outcomes.新生儿重症监护病房中汽车安全座椅的耐受性筛查:失败率、风险因素和不良结局。
J Pediatr. 2018 Mar;194:60-66.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.11.010. Epub 2017 Dec 18.
8
Car Seat Tolerance Screening for Late-Preterm Infants.汽车安全座椅耐受性筛查在晚期早产儿中的应用。
Pediatrics. 2020 Jan;145(1). doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1703.
9
A National Survey of Car Seat Tolerance Screening Protocols in Neonatal Intensive Care Units.全国新生儿重症监护病房汽车安全座椅耐受筛查方案调查。
Acad Pediatr. 2021 Jan-Feb;21(1):109-116. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2020.02.004. Epub 2020 Feb 7.
10
Post-discharge outcomes of failed car seat tolerance screens: A case-control and follow-up study.汽车座椅耐受性筛查失败后的出院结局:一项病例对照及随访研究。
J Neonatal Perinatal Med. 2018;11(3):249-255. doi: 10.3233/NPM-1785.

引用本文的文献

1
The Association Between Routine Car Seat Screening and Subsequent Health Care Utilization.常规汽车安全座椅筛查与后续医疗保健利用之间的关联。
Hosp Pediatr. 2022 Nov 1;12(11):913-922. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2021-006509.

本文引用的文献

1
A National Survey of Car Seat Tolerance Screening Protocols in Neonatal Intensive Care Units.全国新生儿重症监护病房汽车安全座椅耐受筛查方案调查。
Acad Pediatr. 2021 Jan-Feb;21(1):109-116. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2020.02.004. Epub 2020 Feb 7.
2
Recent Trends in Infant Car Seat Tolerance Screening Failure Within a Large Health Care System, 2014-2018.2014 - 2018年大型医疗保健系统内婴儿汽车座椅耐受性筛查失败的近期趋势
Hosp Pediatr. 2019 Oct;9(10):813-817. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2019-0078. Epub 2019 Sep 16.
3
Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Neonatal Intensive Care: A Systematic Review.
种族/民族差异在新生儿重症监护中的体现:系统综述。
Pediatrics. 2019 Aug;144(2). doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3114.
4
Infant Deaths in Sitting Devices.坐式设备导致的婴儿死亡。
Pediatrics. 2019 Jul;144(1). doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2576. Epub 2019 May 20.
5
Late Preterm Infants: Morbidities, Mortality, and Management Recommendations.晚期早产儿:发病率、死亡率及管理建议
Pediatr Clin North Am. 2019 Apr;66(2):387-402. doi: 10.1016/j.pcl.2018.12.008. Epub 2019 Jan 28.
6
Births: Final Data for 2017.出生情况:2017年最终数据。
Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2018 Nov;67(8):1-50.
7
Addressing Racial Inequities in Breastfeeding in the Southern United States.解决美国南部母乳喂养中的种族不平等问题。
Pediatrics. 2019 Feb;143(2). doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-1897. Epub 2019 Jan 18.
8
Car Seat Tolerance Screening in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Failure Rates, Risk Factors, and Adverse Outcomes.新生儿重症监护病房中汽车安全座椅的耐受性筛查:失败率、风险因素和不良结局。
J Pediatr. 2018 Mar;194:60-66.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.11.010. Epub 2017 Dec 18.
9
Racial and Ethnic Differences in Injury Prevention Behaviors Among Caregivers of Infants.婴儿看护者预防伤害行为中的种族和民族差异
Am J Prev Med. 2016 Oct;51(4):411-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.04.020. Epub 2016 Jun 9.
10
Reasons for intentional guideline non-adherence: A systematic review.故意不遵循指南的原因:一项系统综述。
Int J Med Inform. 2016 May;89:55-62. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.02.009. Epub 2016 Feb 23.