Childhood Fever Management: Current Practice vs Evidence.
10.4094/chnr.2016.22.2.126
- Author:
Jin Sun KIM
1
Author Information
1. Department of Nursing, Chosun University, Gwangju, Korea. jinsun@chosun.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Child;
Fever;
Antipyretics;
Evidence-based practice
- MeSH:
Antipyretics;
Baths;
Child;
Evidence-Based Practice;
Fever*;
Health Personnel;
Humans;
Massage;
Nursing;
Parents;
Phobic Disorders;
Porifera;
Seizures, Febrile
- From:Child Health Nursing Research
2016;22(2):126-136
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The purposes of this review were to address misconceptions of childhood fever and fever management practice among parents and health care providers, and to identify the scientific evidences against such misconceptions and practices. METHODS: Journal databases and clinical guidelines from 2000 to 2015 were searched. The search terms were fever, fever management, misconception, myth, fiction, fact, fever phobia, child, antipyretics, tepid bath, alternating use/combined use of antipyretics, and physical cooling method. RESULTS: There are significant gaps between current concepts and practices, and the scientific evidence. Misconceptions and unrealistic concerns about childhood fever still exist among parents and even health care providers, worldwide. The evidences suggest that antipyretics should be given carefully with the aim of relieving discomfort or pain rather than decreasing the temperature itself. Alternating use of antipyretics should be discouraged due to the risk of confusion and error. Antipyretics do not prevent febrile convulsions. Moreover, the scientific evidence does not support tepid sponge massage. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based childhood fever management interventions should be targeted toward parents and health care providers. By adopting an evidence-based approach to nursing interventions, pediatric nurses can ensure children receive appropriate and safe fever management.
