Outpatient parents' views on shared-decision-making at an Italian children's hospital.

Information is lacking on what parents in southern European countries know and how they view clinical shared-decision-making (SDM) for their children. This survey assesses general parental views on SDM and patient-physician SDM relationships in an Italian paediatric outpatients' clinic. In a 3-month cross-sectional survey, we enrolled 458 consecutive native and foreign Italian-speaking parents bringing their children to our public hospital for various reasons. Parents completed an anonymous questionnaire exploring their general views on SDM, including what doctor-patient relationship predominates today, and what approach reassures them most. Multivariate logistic regression analysed outcome data from parental questionnaire answers. Results are reported as percentages, odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Multivariate logistic regression showed that 440 parents (96.1%) appreciated SDM, 245 (53.5%) preferred SDM for choosing children's treatment, 126 (27.5%) answered that SDM is the predominant relationship today, and most parents 275 (60.0%) felt reassured by SDM. More native than foreign Italian-speaking parents preferred SDM (97.0 vs 89.7%, OR = 3.8; 95% CI = 1.4-10.8). Highly-educated parents preferred SDM for choosing their child's therapy (57.9 vs 34.1%, OR = 2.7; 95% CI = 1.6-4.4) and this approach reassured them (64.3 vs 41.2%, OR = 2.5; 95% CI = 1.6-4.1). In conclusion, parents bringing children to an Italian outpatient clinic, especially highly-educated parents, wish to be offered SDM and find it reassuring. These findings should encourage paediatricians working in a challenging multicultural environment to change their physician-centred approach and engage parents in tailored SDM strategies.

Major discrepancies between what clinical trial registries record and paediatric randomised controlled trials publish.

BACKGROUND: Whether information from clinical trial registries (CTRs) and published randomised controlled trial (RCTs) differs remains unknown. Knowing more about discrepancies should alert those who rely on RCTs for medical decision-making to possible dissemination or reporting bias. To provide help in critically appraising research relevant for clinical practice we sought possible discrepancies between what CTRs record and paediatric RCTs actually publish. For this purpose, after identifying six reporting domains including funding, design, and outcomes, we collected data from 20 consecutive RCTs published in a widely read peer-reviewed paediatric journal and cross-checked reported features with those in the corresponding CTRs. METHODS: We collected data for 20 unselected, consecutive paediatric RCTs published in a widely read peer-reviewed journal from July to November 2013. To assess discrepancies, two reviewers identified and scored six reporting domains: funding and conflict of interests; sample size, inclusion and exclusion criteria or crossover; primary and secondary outcomes, early study completion, and main outcome reporting. After applying the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist, five reviewer pairs cross-checked CTRs and matching RCTs, then mapped and coded the reporting domains and scored combined discrepancy as low, medium and high. RESULTS: The 20 RCTs were registered in five different CTRs. Even though the 20 RCTs fulfilled the CASP general criteria for assessing internal validity, 19 clinical trials had medium or high combined discrepancy scores for what the 20 RCTs reported and the matched five CTRs stated. All 20 RCTs selectively reported or failed to report main outcomes, 9 had discrepancies in declaring sponsorship, 8 discrepancies in the sample size, 9 failed to respect inclusion or exclusion criteria, 11 downgraded or modified primary outcome or upgraded secondary outcomes, and 13 completed early without justification. The CTRs for seven trials failed to index automatically the URL address or the RCT reference, and for 12 recorded RCT details, but the authors failed to report the results. CONCLUSIONS: Major discrepancies between what CTRs record and paediatric RCTs publish raise concern about what clinical trials conclude. Our findings should make clinicians, who rely on RCT results for medical decision-making, aware of dissemination or reporting bias. Trialists need to bring CTR data and reported protocols into line with published data.

Are parents of children hospitalized with severe community-acquired pneumonia more satisfied with care when physicians allow them to share decisions on the antibiotic route?

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Despite convincing evidence that oral and injected amoxicillin have equal efficacy in children with severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), hospitalized children often receive injected antibiotics. To investigate whether shared decision-making (choosing the antibiotic route) influences parental satisfaction. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: In a one-year questionnaire-based study, we enrolled consecutive children hospitalized for CAP. At admission, all children's parents received a leaflet on CAP. Parents arriving during the daytime were assigned to a shared group and could choose the antibiotic route, those admitted at other times were assigned to an unshared group for whom physicians chose the antibiotic route. Shared group parents answered anonymous questionnaire investigating why they chose a specific route. Parents in both groups answered another anonymous questionnaire at discharge assessing perceived satisfaction with care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Parents' satisfaction with perceived medical information as assessed by data from a questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 95 children enrolled, more children's parents were assigned to the unshared than the shared group (77 vs. 18). Of the 18 children's parents in the shared group, 14 chose the oral antibiotic route mainly to avoid painful injections. Doctors explanations were considered better in the shared than in the unshared group (P = 0.02). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The larger number of children's parents assigned to the unshared group reflects paediatricians' reluctance to offer shared-decision making. Well-informed parents prefer oral antibiotic therapy for children with severe CAP. Allowing parents choose the antibiotic route respects parents' wishes, reduces children's pain and improves satisfaction.