Cholesterol Screening and Treatment Practices and Preferences: A Survey of United States Pediatricians.

OBJECTIVES: To determine pediatricians' practices, attitudes, and barriers regarding screening for and treatment of pediatric dyslipidemias in 9- to 11-year-olds and 17- to 21-year-olds. STUDY DESIGN: American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2013-2014 Periodic Survey of a national, randomly selected sample of 1627 practicing AAP physicians. Pediatricians' responses were described and modeled. RESULTS: Of 614 (38%) respondents who met eligibility criteria, less than half (46%) were moderately/very knowledgeable about the 2008 AAP cholesterol statement; fewer were well-informed about 2011 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Guidelines or 2007 US Preventive Service Task Force review (both 26%). Despite published recommendations, universal screening was not routine: 68% reported they never/rarely/sometimes screened healthy 9- to 11-year-olds. In contrast, more providers usually/most/all of the time screened based on family cardiovascular history (61%) and obesity (82%). Screening 17- to 21-year-olds was more common in all categories (P?

The Impact on Family of Pediatric Chronic Respiratory Failure in the Home.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the family impact of managing severe, chronic respiratory failure (CRF) at home. Better understanding will inform parental counseling and serve as a point of reference for interventions. STUDY DESIGN: Families of children with CRF completed the Impact on Family Scale (IFS) and Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems. Using multivariable linear regression, we assessed the relationship between IFS and family, clinical, and utilization characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 118 parents (60%) completed the IFS; 114 parents (58%) completed all measures. The 15-item IFS mean total score was 40 (SD = 10) with a possible range of 15-60 (greater scores indicate more impact). Modeling identified a negative association with parent emotional functioning, parent-rated child health, and private insurance only (compared with both private/public), and other family characteristics (eg, parental education, marital status, and income) were not associated with IFS scores. CONCLUSION: Families of children with CRF are greatly impacted by their child's health. In contrast to other children with special health care needs, family characteristics were not associated with IFS scores, excluding insurance type. These results may reflect more uniform demands and stressors related to CRF. Future research should identify interventions to attenuate the impact of CRF.