Becoming Experts in Their Own Treatment: Child and Caregiver Engagement With Burn Scar Treatments.

Children who experience a severe burn injury not only require acute medical care but may also need ongoing rehabilitation. To mitigate the potential long-term consequences of scarring and the impact of scarring on their everyday lives, children may be expected to use a variety of time-consuming and multi-component non-invasive scar treatments (such as pressure garments and silicone gels). These treatments may pose unique challenges for children and their caregivers. With limited research previously addressing how Australian children navigate the use of scar treatments at home, this study aimed to develop a grounded theory of children and their caregivers' engagement with non-invasive burn scar treatments. Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, interviews were completed with 20 caregivers and 7 children, and a theory of children and their caregivers becoming experts in the use of non-invasive burn scar treatments was developed. Through persistence and flexibility, they continued to develop expertise. Engaging with scar treatments was an evolving process over time for children with burns and their caregivers. Theoretical categories identified included 'making it work', 'finding the balance' and 'seeking reassurance' and highlighted the remarkable strengths and adaptability of children and their caregivers. Through trial and error, children and their caregivers developed their own unique strategies for engaging with scar treatments. These insightful results may inform the development of interventions to support children and their caregivers' day-to-day engagement with non-invasive burn scar treatments and guide health professionals recommending these treatments.

Effectiveness of interventions for optimising adherence to treatments for the prevention and management of scars: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the adherence interventions used with people receiving treatments to prevent or manage scarring, the effectiveness of these interventions, and the theoretical frameworks on which these interventions were based. DATA SOURCES: Databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsychINFO and OTseeker) were searched (09.10.2020) with no date or language restrictions. Grey literature databases, clinical trial registries and references lists of key papers were also searched. REVIEW METHODS: Eligible randomised controlled trials included people using treatments for scarring following skin wounds, interventions that may improve adherence, and outcomes measuring adherence. Risk of bias (selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting) and certainty of evidence (inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, publication bias) were assessed. RESULTS: Four randomised trials were included with 224 participants (17 children) with burn scars. Interventions involved educational (three trials) or technology-based components (four trials) and ranged in length from two weeks to six months. All four trials reported greater adherence rates in the intervention group compared with standard practice [standardised mean difference = 1.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.91-2.08); 2.01 (95% CI 1.05-2.98); odds ratio = 0.28 (95% CI = 0.11-0.69)]. One trial did not report original data. The certainty of evidence was very low. CONCLUSION: Adherence interventions using education or technology for people receiving burn scar treatment may improve adherence. Further studies are needed particularly in children, with a focus on including outcomes of importance to patients (e.g. quality of life) and identifying core components of effective adherence interventions using theoretical frameworks.

Effectiveness of interventions for optimising adherence to treatments for the prevention and management of scars: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Treatments used in the management of scarring following wounds of the skin can be complex and time consuming, and patients may experience difficulties adhering to these treatments. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to identify the types of interventions that have been used to optimise adherence to treatment for preventing or reducing skin scars in adults and children and to determine the effectiveness of these interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Databases (PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Web of Science and OTSeeker) will be searched using the developed search strategy to identify eligible randomised trials. Adults and children using scar treatments to prevent or manage scarring as a result of a dermal wound (which may occur following burn injury, surgery, lacerations, piercings, vaccinations, acne and other conditions affecting the skin) will be included. Any intervention with the potential to effect adherence will be included. Titles and abstracts located through searching will be screened by two independent reviewers. Full text of studies will also be screened to determine eligibility for final inclusion. Two reviewers will assess the quality of included studies using the Cochrane 'risk of bias' tool. Data extraction forms will be developed and two reviewers will extract the data. A third reviewer will be used at each stage to ensure consensus is achieved. Meta-analysis and meta-regression will be completed if appropriate, otherwise a narrative synthesis of results will be undertaken. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is necessary for this systematic review as no patients will be directly involved. Results of this systematic review will be disseminated through journal publications and relevant conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018095082.