Qualitative study reveals caregivers' emotional responses and practices in healthcare settings, suggesting improvements in health education.
Introduction: Although childhood fever is a common and typically self-limiting clinical presentation, it imposes a substantial emotional and psychological burden on caregivers, especially mothers, primarily due to enduring practices and beliefs that diverge from contemporary evidence-based medical guidelines. Objective: The aim was to investigate how families perceive pediatric fever, identify the factors influencing their caregiving decisions, and examine their experiences across various healthcare settings. Methodology: A qualitative study employing an ethnomethodological approach was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Spain. The study included ten caregivers (nine mothers and one father) of children presenting with fever. Data were collected through in-depth interviews and field diary observations. Analysis was performed using a combination of inductive and deductive methods, supported by the Atlas.ti 25.0.1 version software. Results: Mothers perceive childhood fever as a disruptive event necessitating rapid decision-making, shaped by emotional responses, prior experiences, culturally transmitted knowledge, and social context. Common caregiving practices included routine administration of antipyretics, application of physical remedies, and early utilization of emergency healthcare services. The caregiver–healthcare professional relationship was characterized by ambivalence, highlighting the need for enhanced health education and greater emotional support for caregivers. Conclusions: Childhood fever represents both a clinical condition and a sociocultural phenomenon. Gaining insight into family practices and beliefs enables the development of more effective, empathetic educational interventions, which can enhance caregiving practices and mitigate parental anxiety. Reporting method: Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) guidelines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vicens-Blanes et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: