ABSTRACT
Parents of children who presented for a pediatrics appointment responded to a clinical vignette that described a child with symptoms consistent with acute viral conjunctivitis. In a 2 × 2 randomized survey design, the physician in the vignette either used the term "pink eye" or "eye infection" to describe the symptoms, and either told parents that antibiotics are likely ineffective at treating the symptoms or did not discuss effectiveness. When the symptoms were referred to as "pink eye," parents remained interested in antibiotics, despite being informed about their ineffectiveness. By contrast, when the symptoms were referred to as an "eye infection," information about antibiotic ineffectiveness significantly reduced interest, Mdiff = 1.63, P < .001. Parents who received the "pink eye" label also thought that the symptoms were more contagious and were less likely to believe that their child could go to child care, compared with parents who received the "eye infection" label, Mdiff = 0.37, P = .38.
Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents , Communicable Diseases/psychology , Conjunctivitis, Bacterial/psychology , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Intention , Parents/psychology , Adolescent , Adult , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Acute infective conjunctivitis is a self-limiting condition that commonly presents to primary care. Patients' understanding of conjunctivitis, their reasons for attendance, and their responses to different management strategies, are unknown. AIM: To explore patients' understanding of conjunctivitis and its management. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study using semi-structured one-to-one interviews. SETTING: Three general practices in Hampshire and Wiltshire. METHOD: Twenty-five patients presenting with conjunctivitis at their general practices were interviewed. Main outcome measures were patients' perceptions of conjunctivities, their experience and knowledge of the disease, beliefs regarding treatment, and their responses to different management strategies and a patient information leaflet. RESULTS: Patients regarded conjunctivitis as a minor illness, although some considered it might become more serious if not treated. Nearly all were confident at recognising conjunctivitis. They stated a preference for not taking medication, but believed that conjunctivitis would not clear up without treatment. However, they were open to alternative management approaches; for example, the delayed prescription approach, because they trusted their general practitioners' (GPs') judgement. Once they were aware of the self-limiting nature of conjunctivitis, patients felt they would prefer to wait a few days to see if the condition improved before seeking medical advice, even if this resulted in a few more days of symptoms. CONCLUSION: Patients who attend their general practices with conjunctivitis present for treatment because they are not aware of its self-limiting nature. Providing patients with this information may enable patients, enhance self-management, and reduce the use of topical antibiotics and the demand for urgent general practice appointments.
