The relationship between respiratory infectious diseases and form of day care was assessed in a retrospective cohort study of 2568 randomly selected children aged 1 through 7 years in Espoo, Finland. Day-care center children had an increased risk for the common cold, acute otitis media, and pneumonia. The risk concentrated in 1-year-old children, for whom the adjusted relative risks (incidence density ratios) for the common cold, otitis media, and pneumonia were 1.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.43, 2.01), 1.99 (95% CI = 1.57, 2.52), and 9.69 (95% CI = 2.31, 40.55), respectively. Among 1-year-old children, the proportion of infections attributable to care at day-care centers were 41% (95% CI = 30, 50) for colds, 50% (95% CI = 36, 60) for otitis media, and 85% (95% CI = 57, 98) for pneumonia. The results provide evidence that care in day-care centers is a determinant of acute respiratory infections in children under 2, whereas family day care does not essentially increase risk.
This study investigated Finnish nurses' experiences and views on end-of-life decision making and compared them with physicians' views. For this purpose, a questionnaire was sent to 800 nurses, of which 51% responded. Most of the nurses had a positive attitude towards and respect for living wills, more often than physicians. Most also believed that a will had an effect on decision making. Almost all of the nurses considered it their responsibility to talk to physicians about respecting living wills. Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders were often interpreted to imply partial or complete palliative (symptom-orientated) care, which may cause confusion. Half of the nurses reported that a DNR decision was discussed always or often with a patient who was able to communicate; physicians were more positive in this respect. Surprisingly, many nurses (44%) stated that active treatment continued too long. Two-thirds thought that their opinions were taken into account sufficiently, even though only half believed that, in general, they had some impact.
Objectives: This study investigated Finnish physicians' experiences of decisions concerning living wills and do not resuscitate (DNR) orders and also their views on the role of patients and family members in these decisions. Design: A questionnaire was sent to 800 physicians representing the following specialties: general practice (n = 400); internal medicine (n = 207); neurology (n = 100), and oncology (n = 93). Results: The response rate was 56%. Most of the respondents had a positive attitude toward (92%), and respect for (86%) living wills, and 72% reported situations in which such a will would have been helpful, although experience with their use was limited. The physicians reported both benefits and problems with living wills. Thirteen per cent had completed a living will of their own. Half did not consider living wills to be reliable if they were several years old. Do not resuscitate orders were interpreted in two ways: resuscitation forbidden (70%) or only palliative (symptom oriented) care required (30%). The respondents also documented DNR orders differently. Seventy two per cent discussed DNR decisions always or often with patients able to communicate, and even 76% discussed DNR orders with the family members of patients unable to communicate. Most respondents were able to approach a dying patient without difficulty. They also felt that education in general was needed. Conclusions: In general Finnish physicians accept living wills, but find they are accompanied by several problems. Many problems could be avoided if physicians and patients conducted progressive discussions about living wills. The differing interpretations of DNR orders are a matter of concern in that they may affect patient treatment. The promotion of patient autonomy with respect to treatment seems rather good, but the limitations of the study need to be kept in mind.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.