Abeer M. Aljaadi, Rana H. Mosli, Ruba H. Eid, Dania H. Bin-Ali, Essra A. Noorwali, Reem O. Basaqr, Hala Al-Otaibi
{"title":"Current Practices in Growth Chart Utilization among Healthcare Practitioners in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study","authors":"Abeer M. Aljaadi, Rana H. Mosli, Ruba H. Eid, Dania H. Bin-Ali, Essra A. Noorwali, Reem O. Basaqr, Hala Al-Otaibi","doi":"10.1155/2024/5521695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p>Growth charts (GCs) are essential tools for monitoring children’s growth and overall health status. The extent to which healthcare professionals in Saudi Arabia (SA) use national and international GC, and adhere to standardized practices remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate current GC practices among healthcare practitioners in SA. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 193 healthcare practitioners in SA who completed an online questionnaire that assessed their characteristics and practices related to the use of GC. Descriptive, bivariate, and logistic regression analyses were performed. Participants reported using different GCs during the assessments, with the following distribution: GC of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (24%), GC of the World Health Organization (WHO) (22%), Saudi GC (21%), and more than one type of GC (30%). Among the participants, 62% recorded GC data for both sick and well child, and 72.5% used GC with new and follow-up children. Only 56% reported discussing the GC output with patients or parents. Adjusting for covariates, dietitians were more likely to use GC with new and follow-up patients (odds ratio (OR): 2.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13, 6.02) and regularly discuss GC output with patients/parents (OR: 2.65, 95% CI: 1.29, 5.43) compared to other healthcare practitioners. Our findings showed significant variability in the use of GC among healthcare professionals in SA. The limited adoption of Saudi GC warrants further investigation to address practice obstacles and monitor children’s growth.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":"2024 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/5521695","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/5521695","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Growth charts (GCs) are essential tools for monitoring children’s growth and overall health status. The extent to which healthcare professionals in Saudi Arabia (SA) use national and international GC, and adhere to standardized practices remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate current GC practices among healthcare practitioners in SA. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 193 healthcare practitioners in SA who completed an online questionnaire that assessed their characteristics and practices related to the use of GC. Descriptive, bivariate, and logistic regression analyses were performed. Participants reported using different GCs during the assessments, with the following distribution: GC of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (24%), GC of the World Health Organization (WHO) (22%), Saudi GC (21%), and more than one type of GC (30%). Among the participants, 62% recorded GC data for both sick and well child, and 72.5% used GC with new and follow-up children. Only 56% reported discussing the GC output with patients or parents. Adjusting for covariates, dietitians were more likely to use GC with new and follow-up patients (odds ratio (OR): 2.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13, 6.02) and regularly discuss GC output with patients/parents (OR: 2.65, 95% CI: 1.29, 5.43) compared to other healthcare practitioners. Our findings showed significant variability in the use of GC among healthcare professionals in SA. The limited adoption of Saudi GC warrants further investigation to address practice obstacles and monitor children’s growth.
期刊介绍:
IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal.
IJCP publishes:
Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion]
Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion]
Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed]
Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed]
Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed]
Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed]
Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed]
''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed]
Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed]
Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion]
International scope
IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.