Current Practices in Growth Chart Utilization among Healthcare Practitioners in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Abeer M. Aljaadi, Rana H. Mosli, Ruba H. Eid, Dania H. Bin-Ali, Essra A. Noorwali, Reem O. Basaqr, Hala Al-Otaibi
{"title":"Current Practices in Growth Chart Utilization among Healthcare Practitioners in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study","authors":"Abeer M. Aljaadi,&nbsp;Rana H. Mosli,&nbsp;Ruba H. Eid,&nbsp;Dania H. Bin-Ali,&nbsp;Essra A. Noorwali,&nbsp;Reem O. Basaqr,&nbsp;Hala Al-Otaibi","doi":"10.1155/2024/5521695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p>Growth charts (GCs) are essential tools for monitoring children’s growth and overall health status. The extent to which healthcare professionals in Saudi Arabia (SA) use national and international GC, and adhere to standardized practices remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate current GC practices among healthcare practitioners in SA. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 193 healthcare practitioners in SA who completed an online questionnaire that assessed their characteristics and practices related to the use of GC. Descriptive, bivariate, and logistic regression analyses were performed. Participants reported using different GCs during the assessments, with the following distribution: GC of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (24%), GC of the World Health Organization (WHO) (22%), Saudi GC (21%), and more than one type of GC (30%). Among the participants, 62% recorded GC data for both sick and well child, and 72.5% used GC with new and follow-up children. Only 56% reported discussing the GC output with patients or parents. Adjusting for covariates, dietitians were more likely to use GC with new and follow-up patients (odds ratio (OR): 2.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13, 6.02) and regularly discuss GC output with patients/parents (OR: 2.65, 95% CI: 1.29, 5.43) compared to other healthcare practitioners. Our findings showed significant variability in the use of GC among healthcare professionals in SA. The limited adoption of Saudi GC warrants further investigation to address practice obstacles and monitor children’s growth.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":"2024 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/5521695","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/5521695","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Growth charts (GCs) are essential tools for monitoring children’s growth and overall health status. The extent to which healthcare professionals in Saudi Arabia (SA) use national and international GC, and adhere to standardized practices remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate current GC practices among healthcare practitioners in SA. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 193 healthcare practitioners in SA who completed an online questionnaire that assessed their characteristics and practices related to the use of GC. Descriptive, bivariate, and logistic regression analyses were performed. Participants reported using different GCs during the assessments, with the following distribution: GC of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (24%), GC of the World Health Organization (WHO) (22%), Saudi GC (21%), and more than one type of GC (30%). Among the participants, 62% recorded GC data for both sick and well child, and 72.5% used GC with new and follow-up children. Only 56% reported discussing the GC output with patients or parents. Adjusting for covariates, dietitians were more likely to use GC with new and follow-up patients (odds ratio (OR): 2.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13, 6.02) and regularly discuss GC output with patients/parents (OR: 2.65, 95% CI: 1.29, 5.43) compared to other healthcare practitioners. Our findings showed significant variability in the use of GC among healthcare professionals in SA. The limited adoption of Saudi GC warrants further investigation to address practice obstacles and monitor children’s growth.

沙特阿拉伯医疗从业人员使用生长图表的现行做法:横断面研究
生长图表(GC)是监测儿童生长和整体健康状态的重要工具。沙特阿拉伯(Saudi Arabia,SA)的医护人员在多大程度上使用国内和国际的生长曲线图,并遵守标准化的做法,目前仍不清楚。本研究旨在调查沙特阿拉伯医疗保健从业人员目前的 GC 实践。该研究对沙特阿拉伯的 193 名医疗从业人员进行了横断面研究,他们填写了一份在线问卷,以评估其使用 GC 的相关特征和实践。研究进行了描述性分析、双变量分析和逻辑回归分析。在评估过程中,参与者报告使用了不同的 GC,其分布情况如下:疾病控制和预防中心(CDC)的 GC(24%)、世界卫生组织(WHO)的 GC(22%)、沙特的 GC(21%)以及一种以上的 GC(30%)。在参与者中,62% 的人同时记录了患病儿童和健康儿童的 GC 数据,72.5% 的人对新生儿和复诊儿童使用 GC。只有 56% 的人表示与患者或家长讨论过 GC 输出结果。调整协变量后,与其他医疗从业人员相比,营养师更有可能对新患者和复诊患者使用 GC(几率比(OR):2.61,95% 置信区间(CI):1.13,6.02),并定期与患者/家长讨论 GC 输出结果(OR:2.65,95% 置信区间(CI):1.29,5.43)。我们的研究结果表明,沙特医疗保健专业人员在使用 GC 方面存在很大差异。沙特对 GC 的采用有限,需要进一步调查,以解决实践中的障碍并监测儿童的成长。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
274
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal. IJCP publishes: Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] ''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed] Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] International scope IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信