首页> 外文OA文献 >Stool frequency recording in severe acute malnutrition ('StoolSAM'); an agreement study comparing maternal recall versus direct observation using diapers
【2h】

Stool frequency recording in severe acute malnutrition ('StoolSAM'); an agreement study comparing maternal recall versus direct observation using diapers

机译:记录严重急性营养不良时的粪便频率(“ StoolSAM”);一项协议研究,比较了母婴召回与使用尿布的直接观察

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background: Approximately 50% of the deaths of children under the age of 5 can be attributed to undernutrition, which also encompasses severe acute malnutrition (SAM). Diarrhoea is strongly associated with these deaths and is commonly diagnosed solely based on stool frequency and consistency obtained through maternal recall. This trial aims to determine whether this approach is equivalent to a 'directly observed method' in which a health care worker directly observed stool frequency using diapers in hospitalised children with complicated SAM. Methods: This study was conducted at 'Moyo' Nutritional Rehabilitation Unit, Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, Malawi. Participants were children aged 5-59 months admitted with SAM. We compared 2 days of stool frequency data obtained with next-day maternal-recall versus a 'gold standard' in which a health care worker observed stool frequency every 2 h using diapers. After study completion, guardians were asked their preferred method and their level of education. Results: We found poor agreement between maternal recall and the 'gold standard' of directly observed diapers. The sensitivity to detect diarrhoea based on maternal recall was poor, with only 75 and 56% of diarrhoea cases identified on days 1 and 2, respectively. However, the specificity was higher with more than 80% of children correctly classified as not having diarrhoea. On day 1, the mean stool frequency difference between the two methods was -0.17 (SD; 1.68) with limits of agreement (of stool frequency) of -3.55 and 3.20 and, similarly on day 2, the mean difference was -0.2 (SD; 1.59) with limits of agreement of -3.38 and 2.98. These limits extend beyond the pre-specified 'acceptable' limits of agreement (+/- 1.5 stool per day) and indicate that the 2 methods are non-equivalent. The higher the stool frequency, the more discrepant the two methods were. Most primary care givers strongly preferred using diapers. Conclusions: This study shows lack of agreement between the assessment of stool frequency in SAM patients using maternal recall and direct observation of diapers. When designing studies, one should consider using diapers to determining diarrhoea incidence/prevalence in SAM patients especially when accuracy is essential
机译:背景:5岁以下儿童死亡的大约50%可归因于营养不良,其中还包括严重的急性营养不良(SAM)。腹泻与这些死亡密切相关,通常仅根据粪便频率和通过母体召回获得的一致性来诊断。该试验旨在确定这种方法是否等同于“直接观察方法”,在该方法中,医护人员使用尿布直接观察住院的复杂SAM儿童的粪便频率。方法:本研究在马拉维伊丽莎白女王中央医院的“ Moyo”营养康复中心进行。参与者是接受SAM治疗的5-59个月的儿童。我们比较了第二天的产妇召回和“黄金标准”获得的两天大便频率数据,在该标准中,卫生保健工作者每隔2小时使用尿布观察一次大便频率。完成学习后,询问监护人他们的首选方法和教育水平。结果:我们发现母体召回与直接观察到的尿布的“黄金标准”之间的一致性差。根据产妇召回来检测腹泻的敏感性很差,分别在第1天和第2天仅发现了75%和56%的腹泻病例。但是,超过80%的儿童正确分类为没有腹泻的特异性更高。在第1天,这两种方法之间的平均大便频率差异为-0.17(SD; 1.68),并且(大便频率)的一致极限为-3.55和3.20,类似地,在第2天,平均差异为-0.2(SD ; 1.59),协议限制为-3.38和2.98。这些限制超出了协议规定的“可接受”限制(每天+/- 1.5大便),并表明这两种方法是不等效的。粪便频率越高,两种方法的差异就越大。大多数初级护理人员强烈优选使用尿布。结论:这项研究表明,使用产妇召回评估SAM患者的大便次数与直接观察尿布之间没有一致性。在设计研究时,应考虑使用尿布来确定SAM患者的腹泻发生率/流行率,尤其是在准确性至关重要的情况下

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号