Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Aim: This study aimed to describe parents’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding childhood fever management and to examine the association between parental e-health literacy and the total score of the Parental Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Questionnaire on Pediatric Fever Management (PKAPQ-PFM). Methods: This descriptive, correlational, cross-sectional study included 442 parents of children aged 0–5 years. Descriptive statistics, simple linear regression, and multivariable linear regression analyses were used for data analysis. Results: Parents’ mean score on the e-Health Literacy Scale was 30.35 ± 6.34, and their mean score on the Parental Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Questionnaire on Pediatric Fever Management was 113.17 ± 9.68. Among parents, 49.1% preferred measuring fever from the forehead, and 44.8% considered 38.0 °C and above as the fever threshold for axillary measurement. Paracetamol (81.9%) was the most preferred antipyretic, and 62.7% of households had forehead thermometers. Parents most frequently sought information about the causes of fever (52.5%), dosing intervals for antipyretic medications (37.1%), and the temperature threshold at which medication should be administered (31.9%). E-health literacy was positively and significantly associated with total PKAPQ-PFM scores (R = 0.322, p < 0.001) and explained 10.4% of the variance in total PKAPQ-PFM scores (R2 = 0.104, p < 0.001). This association remained significant after adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics (B = 0.48, β = 0.32, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Higher parental e-health literacy was associated with higher total PKAPQ-PFM scores. Strengthening parents’ e-health literacy may be a useful focus for parent education aimed at improving childhood fever management. Practical implications: Pediatric nurses should support parents’ digital health literacy to promote safe fever management practices at home and appropriate medication use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Çelik et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: