Suppr超能文献

儿童伤害预防咨询要点

Pediatric injury prevention counseling priorities.

作者信息

Cohen L R, Runyan C W, Downs S M, Bowling J M

机构信息

University of North Carolina Injury Prevention Research Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-7505, USA.

出版信息

Pediatrics. 1997 May;99(5):704-10. doi: 10.1542/peds.99.5.704.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Child health care providers have a unique opportunity to conduct injury prevention counseling but limited empirical evidence for choosing prevention strategies. Efficient use of time requires that prevention strategies of higher priority be discussed before lower priority strategies. Our aim was to assess consensus among experts about the prioritization of prevention strategies for office based injury prevention counseling for parents of children under age two.

DESIGN

We used a modified Delphi technique with 23 childhood injury prevention experts nationwide. Participants were blinded to the identities of each other.

MEASURES

The first questionnaire, distributed via facsimile transmission, consisted of open ended questions about prevention strategies participants believe should be included and their prioritization methods. The second questionnaire was closed ended and based on the results of the first.

RESULTS

Seventeen injury problems and 21 prevention strategies were suggested for counseling. Participants emphasized environmental strategies over more active, educational ones. Motor vehicle occupant injuries and car seats were given high priority scores by all participants. Smoke detectors, lowering the hot water heater temperature, and pool fencing also received high priority ratings. Participants based their decisions on the severity of the injury, the frequency with which the injury occured, and the availability of environmental strategies. However, they disagreed about the relative importance of these factors. Time constraints and parents' inability to absorb information led them to suggest limiting, to fewer than four, the number of prevention strategies addressed at any one visit.

CONCLUSIONS

This study illustrates areas of consensus as well as unresolved dilemmas about pediatric injury prevention counseling. A rational decision making approach to prioritizing elements of clinical counseling is needed. Meanwhile, clinicians can use the findings of this study to derive their own judgments.

摘要

目的

儿童保健提供者有独特的机会开展伤害预防咨询,但在选择预防策略方面的实证证据有限。为有效利用时间,需要在讨论低优先级策略之前先讨论高优先级的预防策略。我们的目的是评估专家们对于针对两岁以下儿童家长的门诊伤害预防咨询中预防策略优先级的共识。

设计

我们采用了改良的德尔菲技术,邀请了全国23位儿童伤害预防专家参与。参与者彼此不知道对方的身份。

措施

通过传真分发的第一份问卷包含开放式问题,询问参与者认为应纳入的预防策略及其优先级确定方法。第二份问卷是封闭式的,基于第一份问卷的结果设计。

结果

共提出了17个伤害问题和21种预防策略以供咨询。参与者更强调环境策略而非更积极主动的教育策略。所有参与者都将机动车乘客伤害和汽车安全座椅列为高优先级。烟雾探测器、降低热水器温度和泳池围栏也获得了高优先级评分。参与者根据伤害的严重程度、伤害发生的频率以及环境策略的可用性来做出决策。然而,他们对于这些因素的相对重要性存在分歧。时间限制和家长吸收信息的能力有限,导致他们建议每次咨询讨论的预防策略数量限制在四个以内。

结论

本研究阐明了儿童伤害预防咨询方面的共识领域以及尚未解决的困境。需要一种合理的决策方法来确定临床咨询要素的优先级。同时,临床医生可以利用本研究的结果形成自己的判断。

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