Acute childhood illness is a universal experience for children and families. This paper presents the central process of a Glaserian grounded theory study which explored family management of acute childhood illness at home. Twenty-nine interviews were conducted with 15 families of children 0-9 years of age. Constant comparative analysis generated the substantive grounded theory 'Containing acute childhood illness within family life'. This informal social rule was identified from families' persistent desire to do the right thing, for their child and in the eyes of others in social life. Families perceived that they were expected to contain illnesses which are defined as minor and to seek medical help for 'real' illnesses. Considerable uncertainty was evident around defining the illness and the legitimacy of seeking medical help. Their concern with the latter indicates doctors' role as moral agents for parents' behaviour, directing the containment of acute childhood illness.

ObjectiveTo explore the views of parents and clinicians regarding the optimal content, format and delivery of safety netting information for acute childhood illness.DesignQualitative study including semistructured focus groups and interviews.SettingFirst contact care settings, community centres, children's centres and nurseries in the Midlands, UK.Participants27 parents from a travelling community, Asian British community and white British community. Sixteen clinicians including 10 doctors and 6 nurses from a general practice surgery, an out-of-hours service and two emergency departments (paediatric and combined adult and paediatric).ResultsParticipants described a need for safety netting to contain information on signs and symptoms of serious and common illnesses, illness management and where and when to seek help. Resources should be basic, simple to use and contain simple symbols. A key criterion was professional endorsement of resources. Internet-based information was desired which is reliable, consistent and up-to-date. Participants described a need for different types of information: that which could be delivered during consultations, as well as more general information for parents to access before consulting a healthcare professional. Face-to-face education, written materials and digital media were suggested delivery mechanisms. Audiovisual material was preferred by families with low literacy. Participants commonly suggested internet-based and phone-based resources, but the travelling community was less comfortable with these approaches.ConclusionsA multifaceted and tailored approach to safety netting is needed so that effective resources are available for parents with varying information needs, literacy levels and ability to use information technology. We have identified key aspects of content, quality criteria, format and delivery mechanisms for safety netting information from the perspectives of clinicians and parents. Resources should be coproduced with parents and clinicians to ensure that they are valued and utilised by both groups.

BackgroundAcute illness is common in childhood, and it is difficult for healthcare professionals to distinguish seriously ill children from the vast majority with minor or self-limiting illnesses. Safety netting provides parents with advice on when and where to return if their child deteriorates, and it is widely recommended that parents of acutely sick young children should be given safety netting advice. Yet little is known about how and when this is given. We aimed to understand what safety netting advice first contact clinicians give parents of acutely sick young children, how, when, and why.MethodsThis was a qualitative study. Interviews and focus groups were held with doctors and nurses in a general practice surgery, a District General Hospital emergency department, a paediatric emergency department, and an out-of-hours service. Data were analysed using the method of constant comparison.ResultsSixteen clinicians participated. They described that safety netting advice includes advising parents what to look for, when and where to seek help. How safety netting was delivered and whether it was verbal or written was inconsistent, and no participants described being trained in this area. Safety netting appeared to be rarely documented, and was left to individual preference. Limitations of written materials, and structural barriers to the provision of safety netting, were perceived. Participants described that safety netting was influenced by clinicians’ experience, confidence, time and knowledge; and perceived parental anxiety, experience, and competence. Participants noted several limitations to safety netting including not knowing if it has been understood by parents or been effective; parental difficulty interpreting information and desire for face-to-face reassurance; and potential over-reassurance.ConclusionFirst contact clinicians employ a range of safety netting techniques, with inconsistencies within and between organisations. Structural changes, clinician training, and documentation in patient notes may improve safety netting provision. Research is needed into the optimal components of safety netting advice so that clinicians can consistently deliver the most effective advice for parents.

ObjectivesFirst, to explore parents’ views on and experiences of managing their febrile child and to assess their behaviour and needs when in search of information about fever; second, to develop and evaluate a hospital discharge information package about fever in children.DesignMixed methods: (A) qualitative study with semistructured interviews and a focus group discussion (FGD) and (B) quantitative survey.SettingEmergency department, non-acute hospital setting and day nursery in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ParticipantsParents of children <18 years (interviews, n=22) parents of children under 5 years (FGD (n=14), survey (n=38)).InterventionInformation package about fever in children (leaflet and website including videos).Outcome measures quantitative surveyKnowledge of fever and confidence in caring for a febrile child (Likert scale 0–5).ResultsParents found fever mostly alarming, especially high fever. Help-seeking behaviour was based on either specific symptoms or on an undefined intuition. When parents did not feel recognised in their concern or felt criticised, anxiety increased as well as the threshold to seek healthcare for future illnesses. Information was needed, especially for situations when the general practitioner or social network were less easily available. This information should be reliable, consistent, available in multiple formats and include advice on management of fever at home and precise referral to medical services. Parents reported improved knowledge about fever (p<0.05) and mentioned improved confidence in caring for a child with fever at home after consulting the information package.ConclusionParents of children with a fever visiting the hospital are concerned about specific symptoms or based on an undefined intuition. Rather than telling parents that they should manage their child’s illness at home, healthcare professionals should recognise parental intuition and provide clear information on alarming signs and potential diagnoses to empower parents in the management of their febrile child.

The development of research with children highlights a number of ethical issues for the research process concerning consent, confidentiality and protection from harm. This article aims to analyse the extent to which these issues have been considered within the published guidance for research involving children. Several key principles emerged: there is consensus that it is unethical not to conduct research with children; consent should be obtained from both the child and the parent or guardian; where the child does not have sufficient understanding of what is involved and the implications of such involvement, the assent of the child should be sought; children involved in research should be made aware that, where information concerning risks to themselves or others emerges, confidentiality cannot be guaranteed; and finally researchers must consider the potential impact of research participation on the child, building methods of providing support to children into the research proposal.