| Title |
Home remedy or hazard? management and costs of paediatric steam inhalation therapy burn injuries
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3399/bjgp16x684289 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah Al Himdani, Muhammad Umair Javed, Juliana Hughes, Olivia Falconer, Christopher Bidder, Sarah Hemington-Gorse, Dai Nguyen |
| Abstract |
Steam inhalation has long been considered a beneficial home remedy to treat children with viral respiratory tract infections, but there is no evidence to suggest a benefit and children are at risk of serious burn injuries. To determine the demographics, mechanism, management, and costs of steam inhalation therapy scalds to a regional burns centre in the UK, and to ascertain whether this practice is recommended by primary care providers. A retrospective study of all patients admitted to a regional burns centre in Swansea, Wales, with steam inhalation therapy scalds. Patients who attended the burns centre for steam inhalation therapy scalds between January 2010 and February 2015 were identified using the burns database and data on patient demographics, treatment, and costs incurred were recorded. In addition, an electronic survey was e-mailed to 150 local GPs to determine whether they recommended steam inhalation therapy to patients. Sixteen children attended the burns centre with steam inhalation scalds. The average age attending was 7.4 years (range 1-15 years) and, on average, three children per year were admitted. The most common indication was for the common cold (n = 9). The average size of the burns was 3.1% (range: 0.25-17.0%) of total body area. One child was managed surgically; the remainder were treated with dressings, although one patient required a stay in a high-dependency unit. The total cost of treatment for all patients was £37 133. All in all, 17 out of 21 GPs surveyed recommended steam inhalation to their patients; eight out of 19 GPs recommended it for children aged <5 years. Steam inhalation incurs a significant cost to patients and the healthcare system. Its practice continues to be recommended by GPs but children, due to their limited motor skills, curiosity, and poor awareness of danger, are at significant risk of burn injuries and this dangerous practice should no longer be recommended. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 8 | 42% |
| Italy | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Ireland | 1 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
| Comoros | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 58% |
| Scientists | 4 | 21% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 68 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 21% |
| Unknown | 26 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 9% |
| Psychology | 5 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 87. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2023.
All research outputs
#495,473
of 25,551,063 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#201
of 4,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,684
of 313,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#6
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,551,063 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,903 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.