|
|
||||||||
1From the Centre for Paediatric Epidemiology, the 2Department of Ophthalmology, and the 4Visual Sciences Unit, Institute of Child Health, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, United Kingdom; and the 3Department of Epidemiology, Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom.
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
METHODS. Cross-sectional survey of the parents or usual caregivers of children with diverse ophthalmic disorders, diagnosed at least 1 year earlier, who attended pediatric ophthalmology clinics at Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, during 1 week in August 2001.
RESULTS. Eighty-nine percent (n = 58) of parents with eligible children participated. Most parents received information from more than one source, with ophthalmologists (79%) and family practitioners (42%) being the two most frequently reported. Family support groups and voluntary organizations (29%) and the Internet (23%) were less commonly cited than anticipated. Parents reported receiving verbal information much more frequently than written information from professionals working with their children. Although 72% (n = 42) of parents could correctly name their childs diagnosis, only 46% (n = 27) were able to describe correctly the nature and impact of the disorder(s). Ophthalmologists were ranked as the most important source overall.
CONCLUSIONS. The findings emphasize the key role of ophthalmic professionals in improving parental education directly, as well their responsibilities and opportunities to do so through supporting and shaping information provision through other sources, especially colleagues in primary care and the Internet.
| Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
On arrival in the clinic, parents of eligible children were given a questionnaire (see Appendix) to complete anonymously, with a letter explaining the purpose of the survey and requesting their participation. Questionnaire completion was taken as consent to participate. A sealed posting box was provided in the waiting area for return of the questionnaires.
The questionnaire comprised open-ended and close-ended questions about sociodemographic status (parents occupation and postal-code for deprivation index), their childs age and any nonophthalmic impairments and disorders, family history of ophthalmic disease, and family structure. Respondents were asked, "What is the name of your childs eye problem or condition?" and also, "How does this condition affect your childs sight?" They were asked specifically whether they had received any information (written or spoken) about their childs condition from the following sources: a range of health, education, social services and welfare professionals who may have worked with their child; family support groups; voluntary organizations; media (newspapers, television, radio); the Internet; or family and friends. Respondents were asked to specify which two sources they had found most useful. Using the same list of possible sources, clinical staff in the ophthalmology department (comprising ophthalmologists, orthoptists, optometrists, clinical vision scientists, and the ophthalmology community link team, who provide support and information to parents) were asked independently to list the two sources that they thought parents found most helpful.
Descriptive analysis was undertaken of sources of information used and those found most useful. Parental knowledge and understanding were assessed by comparing their responses with clinical data recorded in the notes. Sociodemographic factors influencing the use of sources and the extent of understanding and knowledge were examined. The study was approved by the Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health Local Research Ethics Committee and conformed to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The responding parents of 22% (n = 13) of the children were in professional occupations, 21% (n = 12) in intermediate occupations (for example, clerical workers), and 14% (n = 8) in working occupations (for example, manual laborers), using the UK Standard Occupational Classification,1 with 34% (n = 20) being full-time housewives and 9% (n = 5) unemployed. Most (71%; n = 41) were white, 12% (n = 7) were Asian, and 2% (n = 1) black; ethnicity was unspecified in 15% (n = 9).2 In 27% (n = 14) there was a family history of pediatric eye disease and in 47% (n = 25) the children had additional systemic disorders or other impairments. The mean Townsend deprivation index score3 was 0.398, with 62% (n = 28) being in the more socioeconomically deprived half of the total distribution. Thus, participating parents were similar to the overall UK population with respect to ethnic group2 and occupation1 but socioeconomically deprived groups were somewhat overrepresented.
The mean age of the children in the study was 8 years (range, 1.518 years). They had a range of ophthalmic disorders, as shown in Table 1 .
|
|
|
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The findings emphasize the value of appropriate information provided directly by ophthalmologists and that ophthalmic professionals recognize this responsibility. They also identify that ophthalmic professionals have an opportunity to support and shape information provision through other sourcesin particular, colleagues in primary care and education, to whom parents are likely to turn. The low reported frequency of written information provided by all professionals working with children with eye disorders is of concern, given its influence on parental knowledge and concordance with treatment.5 It may be that some of the discrepancy between parents ability to name, as opposed to their ability to describe, their childrens conditions reflects the lack of written information.
Information was less frequently obtained from family support groups and voluntary organizations and through the Internet than had been anticipated from surveys in other clinical specialties.6 7 This may partly reflect the relative rarity of visually impairing disorders in childhood and thus of relevant disorder-specific groups and Internet resources. It is also likely to reflect some lack of awareness of existing sources and inadequate coordination between them: ophthalmic professionals can influence both. The findings of this survey show that professionals working with children with ophthalmic disorders currently have an opportunity to influence the quality of information available through the Internet, reliance on which can be expected to increase with time. This may help to avoid the concerns about accuracy and consistency that prevail in other areas of child health.8 9 Implementation of existing guidance10 by statutory and voluntary sector organizations working in the area may be helpful in achieving this.
| Appendix 1 |
|---|
|
|
|---|

| Acknowledgements |
|---|
| Footnotes |
|---|
Disclosure: J.S. Rahi, None; I. Manaras, None; K. Barr, None
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. This article must therefore be marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Corresponding author: Jugnoo S. Rahi, Centre for Paediatric Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Child Health, 30 Guilford Street, London WC1N 1EH, UK; j.rahi{at}ich.ucl.ac.uk.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
E. Sciberras, S. Iyer, D. Efron, and J. Green Information Needs of Parents of Children With Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder Clinical Pediatrics, March 1, 2010; 49(2): 150 - 157. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Krishnatray, S. S. Bisht, K. Guha, and S. Pinto Development of a Scale to Determine Barriers to Paediatric Eye Care Journal of Health Management, December 1, 2008; 10(3): 293 - 309. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J Keeffe Childhood vision impairment Br J Ophthalmol, June 1, 2004; 88(6): 728 - 729. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |