How parents and children evaluate emollients for childhood eczema: a qualitative study.

Q4 Medicine
International Journal of Low Radiation Pub Date : 2022-05-26 Print Date: 2022-06-01 DOI:10.3399/BJGP.2021.0630
Eileen Sutton, Alison Rg Shaw, Matthew J Ridd, Miriam Santer, Amanda Roberts, Helen Baxter, Hywel C Williams, Jonathan Banks
{"title":"How parents and children evaluate emollients for childhood eczema: a qualitative study.","authors":"Eileen Sutton, Alison Rg Shaw, Matthew J Ridd, Miriam Santer, Amanda Roberts, Helen Baxter, Hywel C Williams, Jonathan Banks","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2021.0630","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Eczema affects one in five children in the UK. Regular application of emollients is routinely recommended for children with eczema. There are four main emollient types, but no clear evidence of which is best. The current 'trial and error' approach to find suitable emollients can be frustrating for parents, children, and clinicians.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To identify how parents and children experience and evaluate emollients.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Qualitative interview study, nested within a primary care trial of emollients (Best Emollients for Eczema [BEE] trial).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Semi-structured interviews with children with eczema and their parents were conducted. Participants were purposively sampled on emollient type (lotion, cream, gel, or ointment), age, and eczema severity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-four parents were interviewed, with children participating in 24 of those interviews. There was no clear preference for any one emollient type. The strongest theme was the variation of experience in each of the four types. Participants focused on thickness and absorbency, both positively and negatively, to frame their evaluations. Effectiveness and acceptability were both considered when evaluating an emollient but effectiveness was the primary driver for continued use. For some, participating in the trial had changed their knowledge and behaviour of emollients, resulting in use that was more regular and for a longer duration.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is no one emollient that is suitable for everyone, and parents/children prioritise different aspects of emollients. Future research could evaluate decision aids and/or tester pots of different types, which could enable clinicians and parents/children to work collaboratively to identify the best emollient for them.</p>","PeriodicalId":14141,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Low Radiation","volume":"1 1","pages":"e390-e397"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9172216/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Low Radiation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2021.0630","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Eczema affects one in five children in the UK. Regular application of emollients is routinely recommended for children with eczema. There are four main emollient types, but no clear evidence of which is best. The current 'trial and error' approach to find suitable emollients can be frustrating for parents, children, and clinicians.

Aim: To identify how parents and children experience and evaluate emollients.

Design and setting: Qualitative interview study, nested within a primary care trial of emollients (Best Emollients for Eczema [BEE] trial).

Method: Semi-structured interviews with children with eczema and their parents were conducted. Participants were purposively sampled on emollient type (lotion, cream, gel, or ointment), age, and eczema severity.

Results: Forty-four parents were interviewed, with children participating in 24 of those interviews. There was no clear preference for any one emollient type. The strongest theme was the variation of experience in each of the four types. Participants focused on thickness and absorbency, both positively and negatively, to frame their evaluations. Effectiveness and acceptability were both considered when evaluating an emollient but effectiveness was the primary driver for continued use. For some, participating in the trial had changed their knowledge and behaviour of emollients, resulting in use that was more regular and for a longer duration.

Conclusion: There is no one emollient that is suitable for everyone, and parents/children prioritise different aspects of emollients. Future research could evaluate decision aids and/or tester pots of different types, which could enable clinicians and parents/children to work collaboratively to identify the best emollient for them.

家长和儿童如何评价用于治疗儿童湿疹的润肤剂:一项定性研究。
背景:在英国,每五名儿童中就有一名患有湿疹。建议患有湿疹的儿童定期使用润肤剂。润肤剂主要有四种类型,但没有明确的证据表明哪种最好。目前寻找合适润肤剂的 "反复试验 "方法可能会让家长、儿童和临床医生感到沮丧。目的:确定家长和儿童如何体验和评价润肤剂:定性访谈研究,嵌套于润肤剂初级保健试验(湿疹最佳润肤剂[BEE]试验)中:方法:对湿疹患儿及其家长进行半结构式访谈。根据润肤剂类型(乳液、霜、凝胶或软膏)、年龄和湿疹严重程度有目的地对参与者进行抽样调查:结果:44 位家长接受了访谈,其中 24 位是孩子的家长。对任何一种润肤剂类型都没有明确的偏好。最突出的主题是对四种润肤剂的体验各不相同。受访者的评价主要集中在厚度和吸收性上,既有正面评价,也有负面评价。在评价润肤剂时,有效性和可接受性都是考虑因素,但有效性是持续使用的主要驱动力。对一些人来说,参加试验改变了他们对润肤剂的认识和行为,从而使他们更经常、更长期地使用润肤剂:结论:没有一种润肤剂适合所有人,家长/儿童对润肤剂有不同的优先选择。未来的研究可以对不同类型的决策辅助工具和/或测试器进行评估,从而使临床医生和家长/儿童能够合作确定最适合他们的润肤剂。
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
International Journal of Low Radiation
International Journal of Low Radiation Environmental Science-Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The IJLR is a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the publication of research articles, review papers and technical notes in all domains related to low-dose radiation, among which are the biological and health effects in humans and the biota, in vitro and in vivo research on low radiation effects, regulatory and policy aspects, risk estimation and public perception.
×
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