IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v56y2003i12p2479-2491.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Variation in physicians' definitions of the competent parent and other barriers to guideline adherence: the case of pediatric minor head injury management

Author

Listed:
  • Sobo, Elisa J.
  • Kurtin, Paul

Abstract

A lack of consensus regarding the definition of even an everyday term can affect physician adherence to clinical guidelines using that term. We demonstrate this by taking, as an illustrative case, the American Academy of Pediatrics' minor head injury (MHI) management guidelines, which generally recommend at-home observation by a "competent" parent (or the equivalent). The recommendation assumes consensus among physicians as to what parental competence comprises. We systematically examined this assumption. Physicians associated with Children's Hospital, San Diego were mailed a survey asking them to freely list terms defining parental competence. Independent variables were: physician gender, training, specialty, practice location, patient age mix, years in practice, and number of MHI cases seen per year. Dependent variables were: free-list content and length, ease and style of competence decision-making style (e.g., independent or collaborative), familiarity with the guidelines, and likelihood of ordering a computed tomography (CT) scan. Of 112 respondents, 34 (30%) were "not at all" or only "slightly" familiar with the guidelines; 23% (21/112) "frequently" or "sometimes" ordered CTs when the guidelines did not support this. Surgeons were more likely to order discretionary CTs. Office-based, pediatric-trained, and female physicians each found it significantly easier than their counterparts to determine which parents were, in their opinion, competent. Men reported using "objective" criteria significantly less frequently than women. A total of 64 discrete criteria were listed. Individual lists contained an average of 6.5 items. Surgeon's lists were significantly shorter than those of medical physicians. Seven sub-domains of competence were identified. Parental competence is not a unitary construct interpreted similarly by all physicians. Subgroups with distinct models may exist; training and specialization may be key variables. To decrease MHI management variation, guidelines should specify parental competence factors to be considered; they may need to be tailored to different physician subgroups.

Suggested Citation

  • Sobo, Elisa J. & Kurtin, Paul, 2003. "Variation in physicians' definitions of the competent parent and other barriers to guideline adherence: the case of pediatric minor head injury management," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(12), pages 2479-2491, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:12:p:2479-2491
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(02)00283-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vani Borooah, 2000. "The Welfare of Children in Central India: Econometric Analysis and Policy Simulation," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 263-287.
    2. Geeta Gandhi Kingdon & Jeemol Unni, 2001. "Education and Women's Labour Market Outcomes in India," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 173-195.
    3. Cowell, Frank A & Jenkins, Stephen P, 1995. "How Much Inequality Can We Explain? A Methodology and an Application to the United States," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(429), pages 421-430, March.
    4. Basu, Kaushik & Foster, James E, 1998. "On Measuring Literacy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(451), pages 1733-1749, November.
    5. Lavy, Victor & Strauss, John & Thomas, Duncan & de Vreyer, Philippe, 1996. "Quality of health care, survival and health outcomes in Ghana," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 333-357, June.
    6. Oaxaca, Ronald, 1973. "Male-Female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 14(3), pages 693-709, October.
    7. Borooah, Vani, 2003. "Births, Infants and Children: an Econometric Portrait of Women and Children in India," MPRA Paper 19620, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Klasen, Stephan, 1994. ""Missing women" reconsidered," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 22(7), pages 1061-1071, July.
    9. Mark Rosenzweig & Andrew D. Foster, "undated". "Technical Change and Human Capital Returns and Investments: Evidence from the Green Revolution," Home Pages _065, University of Pennsylvania.
    10. Behrman, Jere R & Wolfe, Barbara L, 1984. "The Socioeconomic Impact of Schooling in a Developing Country," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 66(2), pages 296-303, May.
    11. Gibson, John, 2001. "Literacy and Intrahousehold Externalities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 155-166, January.
    12. Ravallion, Martin & Wodon, Quentin, 2000. "Does Child Labour Displace Schooling? Evidence on Behavioural Responses to an Enrollment Subsidy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(462), pages 158-175, March.
    13. Caldwell, John C., 1993. "Health transition: The cultural, social and behavioural determinants of health in the Third World," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, pages 125-135.
    14. Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 1998. "Discrimination and detailed decomposition in a logit model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 115-120, October.
    15. Foster, Andrew D & Rosenzweig, Mark R, 1996. "Technical Change and Human-Capital Returns and Investments: Evidence from the Green Revolution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(4), pages 931-953, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:12:p:2479-2491. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.