RESUMO
AIM: Delays in care may be a driver of inequities in perforated appendicitis rates. The goal of this study was to explore potential causes of delay in care for children with perforated appendicitis. METHODS: We conducted an interview study of caregivers of children admitted with perforated appendicitis to a children's hospital between December 2022 and March 2023. Semi-structured interviews based on an iteratively revised interview guide were conducted in-person during the child's admission. All interviews were transcribed, coded and underwent a process of thematic analysis. RESULTS: We reached thematic saturation after 12 interviews. The median age for children was 13.5 years, 50% were male, 83% of caregivers self-identified as White, and one interview required an interpreter. Through thematic analysis, four major themes for potential causes of delay emerged. The first theme of symptom recognition includes delays related to recognising the symptoms, their severity and the need for medical evaluation. The second theme - accessing care - describes delays that occur after a decision was made to seek care until the child was evaluated. The third theme includes delays that occur in making the diagnosis after evaluation. The last theme captures potential delays in definitive treatment after a diagnosis of appendicitis is made. CONCLUSION: We identify four major themes from the patient and family perspective, each with multiple sub-themes, for potential delays in definitive care for children with perforated appendicitis. Additional research is needed to further characterise these potential delays and quantify their role in contributing to inequities in perforation rates.
RESUMO
(1) Background: Pediatric emergency department (PED) settings are opportune venues in which to recruit parental smokers into tobacco cessation interventions. However, the barriers associated with parents' participation in PED-based cessation trials are unknown. The objective was to explore parents' reasons for non-participation in a PED-based tobacco cessation trial. (2) Methods: We employed the framework method and conducted a qualitative data analysis of parental smokers who were eligible to participate in a PED-based tobacco cessation trial and did not choose to participate (n = 371). (3) Results: Two main themes emerged about reasons for non-participation: (a) Not interested in participating in a research study, and (b) concerns specific to the study. Parents had various reasons for not participating in the cessation trial including not being interested in quitting, parents' health and well-being, parents' beliefs about research, and time required for the study and follow-up visits. (4) Conclusion: General disinterest and specific study-related concerns were touted as reasons for non-participation in a PED-based tobacco cessation trial. Given the potential reductions in tobacco-related morbidity to both parents and children that tobacco control interventions can facilitate, future tobacco interventions should consider alterations in study design and recruitment strategies to encourage all eligible parental smokers to participate.