Children with Asthma and Communication with Healthcare Provider: Instrument Development.

PURPOSE: Communication among healthcare providers, caregivers and children with asthma is challenging and sometimes may exclude the child. This may result in delay in recognizing and responding appropriately to asthma symptoms. The purpose was to test an instrument's subscale for content validity related to communication with the healthcare provider by examining age appropriateness, readability and clarity for children with asthma. DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a mixed method explanatory sequential design to examine age appropriateness, readability and clarity for a 15-item subscale of an instrument for children. The qualitative arm (focus groups) was used to enrich the questionnaire. The sample included children ages 8 to 12 with asthma (N = 25). RESULTS: The perspective of children with asthma provided enriched information to influence the development of instrument subscale on communication. CONCLUSIONS: The subscale revealed internal consistency with Cronbach Alpha 0.85. One of the children reported that using the term "provider" was clearer as oppose to healthcare provider. Children participating in the study found readable and clear. A readability analysis revealed the items were readable at a 6th grade level. PRACTICE IMPLICATION: Although the instrument is designed for primary care providers (physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants), the information gained from this pilot increases understanding about including the child in a triadic discussion. Further research will lead to next step toward computing reliability of the full measure and a factor analysis.

Symptom reporting in childhood asthma: a comparison of assessment methods.

BACKGROUND: One barrier to receiving adequate asthma care is inaccurate estimations of symptom severity. AIMS: To interview parents of children with asthma in order to: (1) describe the range of reported illness severity using three unstructured methods of assessment; (2) determine which assessment method is least likely to result in a "critical error" that could adversely influence the child's care; and (3) determine whether the likelihood of making a "critical error" varies by sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: A total of 228 parents of children with asthma participated. Clinical status was evaluated using structured questions reflecting National Asthma Education and Prevention Panel (NAEPP) criteria. Unstructured assessments of severity were determined using a visual analogue scale (VAS), a categorical assessment of severity, and a Likert scale assessment of asthma control. A "critical error" was defined as a parent report of symptoms in the lower 50th centile for each method of assessment for children with moderate-severe persistent symptoms by NAEPP criteria. RESULTS: Children with higher severity according to NAEPP criteria were rated on each unstructured assessment as more symptomatic compared to those with less severe symptoms. However, among the children with moderate-severe persistent symptoms, many parents made a critical error and rated children in the lower 50th centile using the VAS (41%), the categorical assessment (45%), and the control assessment (67%). The likelihood of parents making a critical error did not vary by sociodemographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: All of the unstructured assessment methods tested yielded underestimations of severity that could adversely influence treatment decisions. Specific symptom questions are needed for accurate severity assessments.