RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: We characterize clinician information-sharing and parent verbal engagement during pediatric adenotonsillectomy consultations and evaluate whether these behaviors relate to disease-specific knowledge for parents of children with obstructive sleep-disordered breathing (OSDB). STUDY DESIGN: Mixed-methods sequential explanatory analysis. SETTING: Outpatient otolaryngology clinics. METHODS: We analyzed audio-recorded communication during outpatient encounters for children undergoing initial evaluation for adenotonsillectomy. We identified discrete triadic instances of clinician discussion of individual risks and benefits, parent verbal responses coded as passive ("Right") or active ("Would that repeat the recovery time?"), and corresponding parent answer (correct or incorrect) on a postconsult knowledge questionnaire. Primary outcomes included parent knowledge and decisional conflict. We qualitatively analyzed substantive questions asked by parents during the encounter. RESULTS: In 30 consults, clinicians (n = 8) provided 156 instances of discussion (101 risk, 55 benefit), to which parents provided 34% active responses. Clinician discussion of risks and benefits was associated with greater parent knowledge (odds ratio [OR] = 3.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.25-6.09; P < .001), however parent active engagement was not associated with greater parent knowledge (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.42-2.58, P = .93). Parents demonstrated greater knowledge of benefits than risks (χ2 = 23.16, V = 1.13; P < .001). Parents who responded actively (OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.09-0.72; P = .010) or had greater knowledge (OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21-0.81; P = .010) had less decisional conflict. CONCLUSION: Clinician information-sharing was associated with greater parent knowledge about OSDB treatment. Greater parent engagement and knowledge were independently associated with less decisional conflict. These findings may inform clinicians' approaches to counseling and engaging parents in decisions for surgery.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objective To systematically review the scoring systems used to report findings during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) for adults and children with obstructive sleep apnea. Data Sources PubMed, CINAHL, EBM Reviews, Embase, and Scopus databases. Review Methods This is a systematic review of all indexed years of publications referring to scoring of DISE for children and adults with obstructive sleep apnea. The type of DISE scoring system utilized was the primary outcome. PRISMA guidelines were followed to carry out this review; articles were independently reviewed by 2 investigators. All pediatric and adult studies that utilized ≥1 DISE grading systems were included. Results Of 492 identified abstracts, 44 articles (combined population, N = 5784) were ultimately included; 6 reported on children, 35 on adults, and 1 on children and adults. Twenty-one reporting methods were used in these studies, with the most common being the VOTE system (velum, oropharynx, tongue base, and epiglottis; 38.6%) and the Pringle and Croft classification (15.9%). The sites of obstruction most commonly included in a scoring system were the tongue base (62%), lateral pharynx/oropharynx (57%), palate (57%), epiglottis/supraglottis (38%), and hypopharynx (38%). Less commonly included sites were the larynx (29%), velum (23%), nose (23%), tongue (14%), adenoids (10%), and nasopharynx (10%). Conclusion There is no consensus regarding which scoring system should be utilized to report findings during DISE. The VOTE system and the Pringle and Croft classification were the most frequent scoring systems reported for patients undergoing DISE. Standardization of the reporting of DISE findings would improve comparability among studies.

Asunto(s)