ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Past research focused on the effects of raising a child with autism spectrum disorder on families. However, most research examined parents' perspectives rather than siblings' perspectives. Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative descriptive design was to use photo elicitation to capture perspectives of siblings living with a child with autism spectrum disorder. METHODS: Fourteen siblings (nine male) of 13 children with autism spectrum disorder received disposable cameras with 24-27 colour exposures, and were asked to photograph what was important to them within 2 weeks. After developing snapshots, investigators interviewed siblings about their photographs, and used open, axial and selective coding to determine photograph categories and subcategories. RESULTS: Two major categories were found: people (family members, non-family members) and non-people (personal items/objects, animals, buildings, scenery). Interviews about photographs reflected experiences siblings had with people/non-people in the snapshots and their normal everyday activities. Most photographs revealed family life and activities any sibling would experience whether or not they lived in a family raising a child with autism spectrum disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Photo elicitation facilitates communication between children and health-care professionals, and provides information about living with a child with autism spectrum disorder from the sibling's perspective. This information contributes to our knowledge base and allows development of specific intervention plans for siblings of these children.
Subject(s)
Child Development Disorders, Pervasive/psychology , Photography , Sibling Relations , Siblings/psychology , Symbolism , Adaptation, Psychological , Adolescent , Age Factors , Attitude to Health , Child , Communication , Family Health , Family Relations , Female , Humans , Male , Qualitative Research , Research Design , Stress, Psychological/psychologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) as a part of a standardized regimen. METHODS: An open prospective randomised multicenter study in 216 patients. 106 received ceftriaxone 1 g i.v. 30 min preinterventionally and 110 no study medication. A standardized protocol was followed for PEG preparation, insertion, and aftercare; all patients received a 15 French gastrostomy tube. Follow-up of local and systemic infection and clinical course was continued to postintervention day 10. An aggregate erythema and exudation score > 3 or the presence of pus was taken as indicative of peristomal infection. The pharmacoeconomics of antibiotic use were also examined. RESULTS: In no-prophylaxis patients, wound infection rates were 23.6% on day 4 and 24.5% on day 10 vs. 7.6% (p < 0.05) and 11.4% (p < 0.05), respectively, in prophylaxis patients. Results were disproportionally better in tumor patients in comparison with neurological patients. Patients systemic infection rates were 11.8% vs. 1.9% in noprophylaxis vs. prophylaxis (p < 0.05), and overall infection rates 36.3% vs. 13.3%, respectively (p < 0.05). Pneumonia was more frequent in patients with underlying neurological disease and reduced in the prophylaxis group. Antibiotic and application costs were similar in both groups (p = 0.400). CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose ceftriaxone 1 g is a effective prophylaxis against local and systemic infection after PEG and should be a part of a standard regimen.
