| Title |
Parents are poor at labelling wheeze in children: a cross-sectional study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Pediatrics, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12887-016-0616-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shalini Shanmugam, Anna Marie Nathan, Rafdzah Zaki, Kian Eng Tan, Kah Peng Eg, Surendran Thavagnanam, Jessie Anne de Bruyne |
| Abstract |
Noisy breathing is a common presenting symptom in children. The purpose of this study is to (a) assess parental ability to label wheeze, (b) compare the ability of parents of children with and without asthma to label wheeze and (c) determine factors affecting parental ability to label wheeze correctly. This cross-sectional study in a tertiary hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia involved parents of children with asthma. Parents of children without asthma were the control group. Eleven validated video clips showing wheeze, stridor, transmitted noises, snoring or normal breathing were shown to the parents. Parents were asked, in English or Malay, "What do you call the sound this child is making?" and "Where do you think the sound is coming from?" Two hundred parents participated in this study: 100 had children with asthma while 100 did not. Most (71.5 %) answered in Malay. Only 38.5 % of parents correctly labelled wheeze. Parents were significantly better at locating than labelling wheeze (OR 2.4, 95 % CI 1.64-3.73). Parents with asthmatic children were not better at labelling wheeze than those without asthma (OR1.04, 95 % CI 0.59-1.84). Answering in English (OR 3.4, 95 % CI 1.69-7.14) and having older children with asthma (OR 9.09, 95 % CI 3.13-26.32) were associated with correct labelling of wheeze. Other sounds were mislabelled as wheeze by 16.5 % of respondents. Parental labelling of wheeze was inaccurate especially in the Malay language. Parents were better at identifying the origin of wheeze rather than labelling it. Physicians should be wary about parental reporting of wheeze as it may be inaccurate. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 25% |
| Unknown | 10 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 34% |
| Psychology | 3 | 9% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 26 September 2019.
All research outputs
#3,056,906
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#455
of 3,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,882
of 356,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#5
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,143 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 356,761 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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 90% of its contemporaries.