Parents' concerns and beliefs about temperature measurement in children: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 40% of parents with children aged 6 to 17 months consult a healthcare professional when their child has a high temperature. Clinical guidelines recommend temperature measurement in these children, but little is known about parents' experiences of and beliefs about temperature measurement. This study aimed to explore parents' concerns and beliefs about temperature measurement in children. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted from May 2017 to June 2018 with 21 parents of children aged 4 months to 5.5 years, who were purposively sampled from the METRIC study (a method comparison study comparing non-contact infrared thermometers to axillary and tympanic thermometers in acutely ill children). Data analysis followed a thematic approach. RESULTS: Parents described the importance of being able to detect fever, in particular high fevers, and how this then influenced their actions. The concept of "accuracy" was valued by parents but the aspects of performance which were felt to reflect accuracy varied. Parents used numerical values of temperature in four main ways: determining precision of the thermometer on repeat measures, detecting a "bad" fever, as an indication to administer antipyretics, or monitoring response to treatment. Family and social networks, the internet, and medical professionals and resources, were all key sources of advice for parents regarding fever, and guiding thermometer choice. CONCLUSIONS: Temperature measurement in children has diagnostic value but can either empower, or cause anxiety and practical challenges for parents. This represents an opportunity for both improved communication between parents and healthcare professionals, and technological development, to support parents to manage febrile illness with greater confidence in the home.

Non-contact infrared versus axillary and tympanic thermometers in children attending primary care: a mixed-methods study of accuracy and acceptability.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend measuring temperature in children presenting with fever using electronic axillary or tympanic thermometers. Non-contact thermometry offers advantages, yet has not been tested against recommended methods in primary care. AIM: To compare two different non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) to axillary and tympanic thermometers in children aged ≤5 years visiting their GP with an acute illness. DESIGN AND SETTING: Method comparison study with nested qualitative component. METHOD: Temperature measurements were taken with electronic axillary (Welch Allyn SureTemp®), electronic tympanic (Braun Thermoscan®), NCIT Thermofocus® 0800, and NCIT Firhealth Forehead. Parents rated acceptability and discomfort. Qualitative interviews explored parents' experiences of the thermometers. RESULTS: In total, 401 children were recruited (median age 1.6 years, 50.62% male). Mean difference between the Thermofocus NCIT and axillary thermometer was -0.14°C (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.21 to -0.06°C); lower limit of agreement was -1.57°C (95% CI = -1.69 to -1.44°C) and upper limit 1.29°C (95% CI = 1.16 to 1.42°C). A second NCIT (Firhealth) had similar levels of agreement; however, the limits of agreement between tympanic and axillary thermometers were also wide. Parents expressed a preference for the practicality and comfort of NCITs, and were mostly negative about their child's experience of axillary thermometers. But there was willingness to adopt whichever device was medically recommended. CONCLUSION: In a primary care paediatric population, temperature measurements with NCITs varied by >1°C compared with axillary and tympanic approaches. But there was also poor agreement between tympanic and axillary thermometers. Since clinical guidelines often rely on specific fever thresholds, clinicians should interpret peripheral thermometer readings with caution and in the context of a holistic assessment of the child.