Abstract
-
Purpose
Because fever is a common symptom in children, parents must have accurate knowledge and management ability about it to be able to provide appropriate management. This study aimed to develop a fever management education program, incorporating case-based simulation practice for parents of hospitalized children, and examine its effects on knowledge of fever in children, anxiety related to fever, and self-efficacy in child fever management.
-
Methods
A quasi-experimental, non-equivalent control group pretest-posttest design was employed. A total of 50 parents participated, with 24 and 26 in the experimental and control groups, respectively. The experimental group received both theoretical lectures and case-based simulation practice, whereas the control group received only theoretical lectures.
-
Results
No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups regarding knowledge of fever or anxiety related to fever immediately after the intervention or at the 4-week follow-up. However, the experimental group showed a significant improvement in self-efficacy in fever management from pre- to post-intervention.
-
Conclusion
The findings suggest that fever management education incorporating case-based simulation practice, in addition to theoretical instruction, could potentially enhance parents’ confidence in managing childhood fever. Developing simulation-based educational interventions that enhance long-term effectiveness, can be feasibly integrated into hospital settings, and provide practical and accessible approaches is essential to support parents in effectively managing fever in real-life situations.
-
Key words: Child; Fever; Parents; Simulation training
INTRODUCTION
Fever in childhood is a common symptom. Among children who visit the emergency room due to high fever, the actual body temperature measurement values did not fall into the high fever category medically, or only a part of them required hospitalization [
1,
2]. This means that in the case of children without underlying conditions, fever can be managed at home with symptomatic supportive care. However, it also highlights the lack of appropriate home care is, with parents’ fear of fever causing excessive use of medical services, leading to inappropriate fever management [
1,
3].
Previous studies have revealed parents’ low level of knowledge regarding childhood fever [
4,
5]. They lack not only accurate awareness of the normal body temperature range or the threshold for fever in children but also proper understanding of at-home fever management, including how to measure body temperature, administer antipyretics, and use non-pharmacological methods [
6,
7]. In addition, despite current fever management guidelines recommending environmental cooling, dressing the child in light clothing, and ensuring adequate hydration over tepid sponging—which may cause crying and discomfort in children—parents still primarily use tepid sponging as the first-line symptomatic treatment [
7,
8].
Such inappropriate fever management by parents stems from difficulties in acquiring the knowledge necessary to effectively assess and address the severity of children’s fever [
9]. In particular, despite the importance of obtaining accurate, evidence-based information aligning with evolving fever management, parental misconceptions and excessive fear regarding fever in children continue to be reported [
9]. This highlights the importance of imparting education on child fever management to enhance parents’ understanding, reduce their anxiety about fever, and promote safe and appropriate fever management behaviors.
Many studies have reported the positive effects of educational interventions on child fever management targeting parents and caregivers. These interventions have been shown to improve not only knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and fever management skills but also satisfaction and the use of healthcare services [
10]. Some parental education interventions on child fever management consist of group-based education involving accessible methods such as lectures and discussions. However, parents have continued to experience difficulties in managing their children’s fever with these traditional training approaches, prompting a demand for more effective educational strategies [
11]. Consequently, methods incorporating demonstrations, videos, or online media—often combined with face-to-face instruction—have been suggested as more effective than standalone approaches [
12,
13]. In response, recent international studies have begun to apply simulation-based educational methods in parental education on child fever management [
14-
16]. Case-based simulation is effective for training individuals to develop fundamental skills and coping abilities in realistic settings [
17,
18]. In health education, where enhancing self-efficacy and promoting actual behavioral change are critical, scenarios that incorporate health-related content can improve memory retention, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of education compared to theoretical instruction alone [
19].
This study aims to develop a child fever management education program that combines traditional theoretical lectures with case-based simulation practice. The program targets parents of hospitalized children, and its effects on knowledge of fever, anxiety related to fever, and self-efficacy in managing fever in children are evaluated. The three research hypotheses (H1–H3) are as follows:
H1. The experimental group provided with the child fever management education program applying case-based simulation practice will have a higher “knowledge of fever” score compared to the control group immediately after program and 4 weeks later.
H2. The experimental group provided with the child fever management education program applying case-based simulation practice will have a lower “anxiety related to fever” score compared to the control group immediately after program and 4 weeks later.
H3. The experimental group provided with the child fever management education program applying case-based simulation practice will have a higher “self-efficacy in managing fever in children” score compared to the control group immediately after program and 4 weeks later.
METHODS
Ethical statements: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Kangwon Natinoal University Hospital (IRB no., 2024-07-008-003). Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
1. Study Design
This study employed a quasi-experimental, non-equivalent control group pretest-posttest design to examine the effects of a child fever management education program on parents of hospitalized children, specifically focusing on their knowledge of fever, anxiety related to fever, and self-efficacy in managing fever in children. This study followed the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) reporting guidelines [
20].
The study setting was the pediatric ward of Kangwon National University Hospital, a general hospital located in Chuncheon. The participants were parents of children admitted to this ward who agreed to participate in the study. The specific inclusion criteria were as follows: fathers or mothers of children aged between 3 months and 3 years who were admitted for less than 7 days to the pediatric ward for acute respiratory infections, gastroenteritis, or otitis media; those who are primary caregivers for their child while living together at home; those whose children have had a fever; and those who have sufficient understanding and communication skills in Korean to comprehend the educational content without difficulty.
The number of participants was calculated using G*Power ver. 3.1.9 program (Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf) based on a significance level (α) of .05, a power (1–β) of .80, and effect size of 0.8, with reference to previous studies [
10] for t-test. Considering a dropout rate of 30%, the control group consisted of the parents of the first 30 hospitalized children. After all the children in the control group had been discharged, the next 30 hospitalized children’s parents were assigned to the experimental group. Four and six participants dropped out of the control and experimental groups, resulting in a final sample size of 26 and 24 participants, respectively (
Figure 1).
1) Knowledge of fever
The tool for measuring parents’ knowledge about fever in children was developed by Jeong et al. [
21]. It comprises 20 items, including five on the physiology of fever, two on febrile seizures, three on assessment during fever, three on antipyretics, and seven on fever management. Each item can be answered with the options “yes,” “no,” or “I don’t know.” The scores range from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicating greater parental knowledge about fever in children. Cronbach’s α was .64 in Jeong et al. [
21] and Kuder-Richardson 20 (KR-20) was .64 in this study.
2) Anxiety related to fever
The tool for measuring parents’ anxiety related to fever in children was developed by Kim [
6]. It comprises 10 items, rated on 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The scores range from 5 to 50, with higher scores indicating greater anxiety related to fever. Cronbach’s α was .83 in Kim [
6] and .81 in this study.
3) Self-efficacy in managing fever in children
The tool used to measure parents’ self-efficacy in managing their children’s fever was the perceived behavioral control scale for child fever management, developed by Walsh et al. [
22] and translated by Jeong [
23]. It comprises three items that assess parents’ self-efficacy in fever management, decision-making abilities during a fever, and the use of antipyretics. On a 10-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all capable” to “very capable,” the scores range from 3 to 30, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy. Cronbach’s α was .95 in Jeong [
23] and .86 in this study.
The case-based simulation practice education for parents, which was as the intervention employed in this study, involved presenting parents with scenarios of fever in children and allowing them to perform fever assessment and management using a high-fidelity newborn simulator (Newborn HAL; Gaumard). The child’s condition was altered according to each scenario and parents were instructed to respond accordingly. After each case, the researcher provided feedback. Newborn HAL is capable of simulating changes in vital signs and physiological conditions, allowing for realistic practice in a near clinical environment. During the practice, symptoms such as crying, tachypnea, cyanosis, limb stiffness, and tremors were simulated to help parents experience potential signs of fever in children and practice appropriate responses. Five pediatric fever cases were developed, all of which were utilized for simulation practice and feedback (
Table 1). Case 1 presented a scenario of a child with a high fever accompanied by chills. Following the simulation of chill symptoms, parents practiced temperature measurement and appropriate administration of antipyretics and were instructed to articulate situations where medical consultation would be necessary. Case 2 presented a scenario of a child with a high fever accompanied by tachypnea. The simulator demonstrated symptoms of tachypnea, and parents practiced recognizing abnormal breathing, measuring body temperature, and administering antipyretics. Case 3 presented a scenario of a child with a high fever accompanied by convulsions and limb stiffness. The simulator reproduced symptoms of limb rigidity, and parents practiced temperature measurement along with appropriate management strategies during and after a seizure episode. Cases 4 and 5 described scenarios where children exhibited persistent high fever despite the administration of antipyretics. Parents practiced alternating antipyretic administration and non-pharmacological management strategies, including tepid sponging and environmental control. This education program was developed based on recent guidelines by Paul et al. [
8] and the pediatric textbook by Ahn and Shin [
24], with reference to previous studies [
8,
23,
25-
27]. The cases for the simulation practice were reviewed for content validity by an expert panel constituting one pediatrician, one head nurse of a pediatric ward, one child health nursing professor, and two nurses with 8 years of experience in the pediatric ward. Each of these five experts assessed the appropriateness of the items on a 4-point scale, all of which were rated 3 or higher, implying high content validity.
The program was delivered by the researcher—a pediatric ward nurse who has cared for children with fever and was responsible for admitting and imparting education to parents. The participants were parents of hospitalized children, and the number of each program attendees was limited from one to two. The program was conducted in the education or conference room within the pediatric ward.
For the experimental group, brief educational session using a leaflet was conducted for approximately 10 minutes following the pretest on the day of hospitalization. On the second day, a 30-minute case-based simulation session was conducted, followed by a feedback session (
Table 1). In contrast, the control group only received brief education on child fever management using a leaflet. The educational leaflet provided to the experimental and control groups contained information on the definition of fever, methods of temperature measurement, symptoms necessitating medical attention, appropriate administration of antipyretics, non-pharmacological interventions, and management of febrile seizures.
Data were collected from November 30, 2023, to April 27, 2024. The researcher directly explained the purpose and methods of the study to the parents who met the inclusion criteria, and written consent was obtained from those who agreed to participate. A pretest was conducted before the brief educational session using a leaflet on the day of hospitalization and the first posttest was conducted after the case-based simulation practice. A second follow-up posttest was conducted at 4 weeks after the completion of the first posttest using an online survey.
Data were analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistics ver. 29 program (IBM Corp.). General participant characteristics of were analyzed using percentages, means, and standard deviations. Chi-square tests, Fisher’s exact tests, and independent t-tests were performed to test the homogeneity of study variables between the experimental and control groups. Differences over time regarding knowledge of fever, anxiety about fever, and self-efficacy for fever management between the two groups after implementing the program were analyzed using independent t-test and repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). The number of hospitalizations as a covariate was applied. Homogeneity of variances was verified using Mauchly’s test of sphericity in the repeated-measures ANOVA, and when the assumption of sphericity was not met, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied. The reliability of the study variables was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha and KR-20, with the significance level set at .05.
RESULTS
1. Homogeneity Test of General Characteristics and Study Variables
Except for the number of hospitalizations (
p=.029), no significant differences in general characteristics were observed between the experimental and control groups. Further, no significant differences in the study variables were observed between the two groups (
Table 2).
For H1, the experimental group did not show a significantly higher knowledge score than the control group immediately after the program (t=0.05, p=.962) and 4 weeks later (t=–0.08, p=.936). In addition, the interaction between group and time was not significant (F=0.151, p=.860). Therefore, H1 was rejected.
For H2, the experimental group did not show a significantly lower anxiety score than the control group immediately after the program (t=0.24 p=.814) and 4 weeks later (t=0.70, p=.486). In addition, the interaction between group and time was not significant (F=0.749, p=.476). Therefore, H2 was rejected.
For H3, the experimental group showed a significantly higher self-efficacy score than the control group immediately after the program (t=–2.06,
p=.046). But there was no significant difference 4 weeks after the program (t=–1.35,
p=.183). The interaction between group and time was not significant (F=1.473,
p=.236). Therefore, H3 was partially supported (
Table 3).
DISCUSSION
This study developed and implemented a child fever management education program incorporating case-based simulation practice for parents of hospitalized infants and toddlers. It aimed to assess the program’s effects on parents’ knowledge of fever, anxiety related to fever, and self-efficacy in managing fever in children. Notably, this education program differs from previous interventions by combining theoretical lectures with case-based simulation practice. To evaluate its effectiveness, the experimental group received both the lecture and the case-based simulation practice, while the control group received only the former. The outcomes of the two groups were then compared.
First, there was no statistically significant difference in fever knowledge between the experimental and control groups immediately after the education program, and no interaction effect between group and time was observed at the 4-week follow-up. In a study by Tavan et al. [
16], parents participated in four 30-minute sessions using a child model for practice. During later sessions, they practiced responses to various fever-related scenarios. In the study, the experimental group showed a significant increase in knowledge compared to the control group, which only received a fever management booklet at the end of the study [
16]. In contrast, our study included a 30-minute session comprising a brief theoretical lecture using a leaflet and simulation practice based on five different cases for the experimental group. The control group only received the former. However, no significant differences in the improvement of fever knowledge were found between the two groups. It is assumed that both groups showed improved knowledge of fever because the control group also received basic theoretical education on its management. In addition, the fever management education program may have limitations, as a single 30-minute practice session may be insufficient for participants to apply and retain the knowledge acquired through the theoretical lecture. This is presumed to have influenced the absence of differences between the two groups in the follow-up assessment conducted 4 weeks later. Therefore, future studies should consider the number and duration of training sessions to maximize the effectiveness of the education program. Moreover, re-education schedules should be designed aligned with the timing of memory decay. Additional research is also needed to determine whether the theoretical knowledge acquired is internalized as practical knowledge and whether the effects of knowledge acquisition are sustained over the long term. Since the internal consistency of the fever knowledge scale was relatively low in this study, future research should improve or supplement the instrument to ensure greater reliability.
Second, there was no statistically significant difference in fever-related anxiety between the experimental and control groups immediately after the education program, and no interaction effect between group and time was observed at the 4-week follow-up. Although this study hypothesized that the experimental group receiving case-based simulation practice would more effectively internalize fever management knowledge and acquire coping skills, thereby leading to a greater reduction in anxiety compared to the control group, this hypothesis was not supported. A possible reason for the lack of a significant difference in anxiety scores between the two groups is that the cases presented—which included common pediatric conditions such as urinary tract infections, tachypnea, and febrile seizures—may have introduced new sources of anxiety unrelated to fever itself. Furthermore, both parents who did and did not experience febrile seizures expressed confusion and fear when observing a seizure demonstration on the simulator. The febrile seizure simulation scenario indicates the potential to inadvertently heighten anxiety among parents who are unfamiliar with such clinical situations. Furthermore, parents’ lack of familiarity with the educational environment may have constrained their comfort and engagement in learning and practice. As such, its one-time application may not have been sufficient for effective real-world application. Therefore, future educational programs must aim to provide accurate information on diseases related to childhood fever while being mindful not to induce new anxieties. Furthermore, anxiety scores between the two groups showed little change even at the 4-week follow-up, suggesting that a single education program may not be sufficient to produce a sustained reduction in parents’ anxiety related to fever. Accordingly, future programs should incorporate preparatory guidance and instruction for unfamiliar scenarios, as well as provide emotional support that enables parents to express their anxiety and acquire concrete coping strategies. Repeated sessions should be implemented to facilitate participants’ adaptation to the learning environment and simulation tools. It may also be effective to present the cases in video format, followed by Q&A sessions and targeted feedback to support active learning. Moreover, parents’ hypersensitive reactions and responses to their children’s fever have been associated with low levels of knowledge about fever management [
4,
21], which consequently leads to fear of fever and difficulties in its management [
28]. Therefore, educating parents on accurate knowledge and appropriate responses to childhood fever may help reduce their anxiety related to fever.
Third, the experimental group showed a significantly higher improvement in fever management self-efficacy immediately after the program than the control group. This result suggests that the case-based simulation practice—in which parents provided nursing care to Newborn HAL, a high-fidelity neonatal model capable of displaying changes in vital signs and physiological conditions—allowed them to translate abstract theoretical concepts into practical application, thereby positively influencing self-efficacy immediately after the intervention. A study by Park [
29] revealed that parents who received simulation-based education on pediatric first aid demonstrated a significant increase in self-efficacy, reflecting enhanced confidence in performing emergency care. Similarly, in a study by Chang et al. [
14], participants in the experimental group engaged in a 30-minute fever management simulation session, practiced caregiving behaviors, and then received a brochure summarizing key information. The total education time was approximately 65 minutes. In contrast, the control group received only the brochure and a 35-minute explanation of its content. Follow-up surveys conducted at 6 and 12 months revealed that the experimental group demonstrated more effective long-term fever management behaviors than did the control group. In the present study, although self-efficacy scores showed an increase even 4 weeks after the intervention, there was no statistically significant interaction effect between the two groups and time. To ensure the lasting effects of simulation practice for parents, it is necessary to consider follow-up strategies such as online feedback and reminder sessions following the initial short-term education. Thus, further research is needed to examine the long-term sustainability of self-efficacy improvements. Nevertheless, scenario-based simulation remains a valuable educational approach, as it allows participants to develop fundamental skills and coping abilities in settings that closely resemble real-life situations [
17,
18]. Therefore, simulation-based training may be a beneficial strategy to help parents enhance their self-efficacy and effectively manage their children’s fever. The self-efficacy measurement tool used in this study comprised only three items, which may be insufficient to fully measure self-efficacy regarding fever management. Therefore, future research should consider employing or developing a more valid instrument to appropriately measure parents’ self-efficacy in managing child fever.
The results of this study revealed that the fever management education program for parents of hospitalized children, which combined theoretical lectures with case-based simulation practice, did not demonstrate superior effects on parents’ knowledge of fever or anxiety related to fever compared to theoretical lectures alone. This study was conducted in a pediatric ward with parents of children hospitalized for short-term stays, during which parents were primarily responsible for direct caregiving. Within this context, the educational intervention was restricted to a single 30-minute simulation session, which may have been insufficient to produce measurable effects on outcomes related to knowledge or anxiety. However, it did significantly improve their self-efficacy for fever management immediately after the intervention. Given that simulation-based education requires more resources—including facilities, personnel, time, equipment, and cost—than does theoretical education, its implementation in pediatric wards for parents of acutely ill, hospitalized children must consider environmental and time constraints. Nevertheless, there remains a need to develop more practical and appropriate fever management interventions that go beyond simple theoretical lectures and help parents respond effectively in real-life situations.
This study has some limitations. First, it confirmed only the short-term effects on self-efficacy improvement, while long-term effects were not observed. The generalizability of the findings is limited, as the study employed a convenience sample of parents of children hospitalized in the pediatric ward of a single university hospital in Korea. Furthermore, owing to the short duration of hospitalization, the time to conduct the full case-based simulation practice may have been insufficient, which could have influenced the study’s outcomes. Despite these limitations, this study is significant in that it is the first to develop and evaluate the effects of a childhood fever management education program incorporating case-based simulation practice for parents of hospitalized children in Korea. However, since self-efficacy improvement was only transient immediately after the intervention, we suggest follow-up education or reminder interventions to maintain long-term effects. We also propose the use of practical, feasible adaptations such as video-based scenarios or hybrid models for implementing simulation education, considering the limited personnel, time, and space in hospital settings. Future studies should aim to develop and assess various educational methods tailored to the hospital environment, while also expanding fever management programs for infants and young children to home and community settings.
CONCLUSION
This study developed a fever management education program incorporating case-based simulation practice for parents of hospitalized children and examined its effects on parents’ knowledge of fever in children, anxiety related to fever, and self-efficacy in child fever management by comparing a control group that received only theoretical lectures with an experimental group that received both theoretical lectures and case-based simulation practice. The results revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups in knowledge of fever and anxiety related to fever immediately after the education and 4 weeks later. However, parents’ self-efficacy in fever management demonstrated a significant improvement between pre- and post-intervention. Therefore, the educational program developed in this study could serve as foundational material for future fever management education for children, contributing to more appropriate fever management behaviors at home and in the community. Follow-up education or reminder interventions should be considered to enhance the long-term effects of self-efficacy. Moreover, practical strategies—such as hybrid models or video-based scenarios—that can be feasibly integrated into hospital environments with constraints in personnel, time, and space should be explored for implementing case-based simulation education for parents. Future research should expand the target population to include parents of healthy children in the community or those attending outpatient clinics, and the educational program’s effectiveness should be validated through objective assessments of actual fever management skills.
ARTICLE INFORMATION
Figure 1.
Table 1.Overview of the child fever management education program incorporating case-based simulation practice for parents of hospitalized children
|
Day & case |
Contents |
|
Day 1 (admission day) |
Provision of leaflet materials and lecture (for 10 minutes) |
|
Key contents |
Definition of fever, measuring body temperature, symptoms that require medical attention, how to use antipyretics, non-pharmacological interventions, febrile seizure |
|
Day 2 (the second day of hospitalization) |
Case-based simulation practice and feedback (for 30 minutes) |
|
Case 1 |
18-month-old child (11 kg) with a body temperature of 39.2°C, experiencing chills, decreased activity, reduced urine output, and abnormal urine odor |
|
Simulator operation |
Chills |
|
Key practice components |
• Temperature measurement techniques using tympanic and axillary thermometers |
|
• Antipyretic administration: calculating dose by weight, dosing intervals |
|
• Identifying when to seek medical care |
|
Case 2: |
2-month-old infant (5 kg) with a body temperature of 38.3°C, showing signs of rapid breathing and pale appearance |
|
Simulator operation |
Tachypnea, abnormal breathing sound, chest retraction |
|
Key practice components |
• Temperature measurement techniques using tympanic and axillary thermometers |
|
• Antipyretic administration: calculating dose by weight, dosing intervals |
|
• Identifying when to seek medical care |
|
Case 3: |
22-month-old child (12 kg) with a body temperature of 38.9°C, presenting with limb rigidity and upward eye deviation. Limb stiffness resolves after 1 minute |
|
Simulator operation |
Limb rigidity |
|
Key practice components |
• Temperature measurement |
|
• Managing febrile seizures: ensuring a safe environment, timing the seizure, observing the child’s condition, video recording the episode if possible |
|
Case 4: |
12-month-old child (10 kg) with a body temperature of 38.7°C, took acetaminophen suspension 1 hour ago. No other significant symptoms are observed |
|
Simulator operation |
None |
|
Key practice components |
• Temperature measurement |
|
• Non-pharmacological interventions: tepid sponging, environmental management (e.g., removing clothes, using light blankets, ventilation, and room temperature control) |
|
Case 5: |
4-year-old child (18 kg), previously had a fever of 38.9°C and was given ibuprofen 3 hours ago. Upon rechecking, the body temperature is 39.1°C. |
|
Simulator operation |
None |
|
Key practice components |
• Temperature measurement |
|
• Alternating antipyretics |
Table 2.Homogeneity test of general characteristics and study variables between the experimental and control groups (N=50)
|
Characteristic |
Exp. (n=24) |
Cont. (n=26) |
χ2 or t or Z |
p
|
|
Age (yr) |
|
|
2.09 |
.616 |
|
≤30 |
8 (33.3) |
5 (19.2) |
|
|
|
31–35 |
8 (33.3) |
11 (42.3) |
|
|
|
≥36 |
8 (33.3) |
10 (38.5) |
|
|
|
Relationship with child |
|
|
|
.602a)
|
|
Mother |
22 (91.7) |
25 (96.2) |
|
|
|
Father |
2 (8.3) |
1 (3.8) |
|
|
|
Education |
|
|
4.44 |
.867 |
|
≤High school |
6 (25.0) |
7 (26.9) |
|
|
|
College (3 yr) |
4 (16.7) |
6 (23.1) |
|
|
|
Bachelor (≥4 yr) |
14 (58.4) |
13 (50.0) |
|
|
|
Occupation |
|
|
1.43 |
.757a)
|
|
Ofiice worker |
7 (29.2) |
5 (19.2) |
|
|
|
Service job |
5 (20.8) |
4 (15.4) |
|
|
|
Profession |
5 (20.8) |
6 (23.1) |
|
|
|
Housewife |
7 (29.2) |
11 (42.3) |
|
|
|
No. of children |
|
|
1.97 |
.131 |
|
1 |
14 (58.3) |
10 (38.5) |
|
|
|
≥2 |
10 (41.7) |
16 (61.5) |
|
|
|
Experience of febrile convulsions |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes |
0 (0.0) |
3 (11.5) |
|
.236a)
|
|
No |
24 (100.0) |
23 (88.5) |
|
|
|
Congenital disease |
|
|
|
.491a)
|
|
Yes |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
|
|
|
No |
24 (100.0) |
26 (100) |
|
|
|
Child’s age (mo) |
|
|
1.40 |
.550 |
|
≤11 |
9 (37.5) |
6 (23.1) |
|
|
|
12–23 |
10 (41.7) |
12 (46.2) |
|
|
|
≥24 |
5 (20.8) |
8 (30.7) |
|
|
|
Child’s sex |
|
|
0.70 |
.572 |
|
Male |
11 (45.8) |
15 (57.7) |
|
|
|
Female |
13 (54.2) |
11 (42.3) |
|
|
|
Current fever status |
|
|
1.24 |
.358 |
|
Yes |
15 (62.5) |
21 (80.8) |
|
|
|
No |
9 (37.5) |
5 (19.2) |
|
|
|
Experience of fever |
|
|
|
.661a)
|
|
Yes |
24 (100.0) |
26 (100.0) |
|
|
|
No |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
|
|
|
No. of hospitalizations |
|
|
7.29 |
.029 |
|
1 |
14 (58.3) |
11 (42.3) |
|
|
|
2 |
9 (37.5) |
6 (23.1) |
|
|
|
≥3 |
1 (4.2) |
9 (34.6) |
|
|
|
Child’s health status |
|
|
2.65 |
.474a)
|
|
Very good |
2 (8.3) |
0 (0.0) |
|
|
|
Good |
12 (50.0) |
11 (42.3) |
|
|
|
Fair |
7 (29.2) |
10 (38.5) |
|
|
|
Poor |
3 (12.5) |
5 (19.2) |
|
|
|
Fever knowledge |
10.67±2.26 |
10.23±2.60 |
–0.63 |
.531 |
|
Anxiety about fever |
38.08±6.26 |
35.85±5.56 |
–1.34 |
.187 |
|
Self-efficacy for fever management |
15.79±3.89 |
17.27±4.53 |
1.23 |
.224 |
Table 3.Differences in study variables between the experimental and control groups (N=50)
|
Group |
T₁ |
T₂ |
T₃ |
T₂–T₁ |
T₃–T₁ |
T₃–T₂ |
S |
F |
p
|
|
M±SD |
M±SD |
M±SD |
M±SD |
t (p) |
M±SD |
t (p) |
M±SD |
t (p) |
|
Knowledge of fever |
|
|
|
|
.05 (.962) |
|
–.08 (.936) |
|
–.16 (.876) |
|
|
|
|
Exp. |
10.67±2.26 |
15.21±2.26 |
14.92±2.50 |
4.54±2.84 |
|
4.25±2.79 |
|
–.29±1.73 |
|
G |
0.343 |
.561 |
|
Cont. |
10.23±2.60 |
14.81±2.14 |
14.42±1.96 |
4.58±2.39 |
|
4.19±2.25 |
|
–.38±2.43 |
|
T |
24.981 |
<.001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G×T |
0.151 |
.860 |
|
Anxiety related to fever |
|
|
|
|
.24 (.814) |
|
.70 (.486) |
|
.54 (.594) |
|
|
|
|
Exp. |
38.08±6.26 |
34.67±6.86 |
32.54±7.48 |
–3.42±4.52 |
|
–5.54±5.36 |
|
–2.13±5.80 |
|
G |
0.964 |
.331 |
|
Cont. |
35.85±5.56 |
32.73±8.29 |
31.38±7.11 |
–3.12±4.48 |
|
–4.46±5.51 |
|
–1.35±4.28 |
|
T |
2.028 |
.137 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G×T |
0.749 |
.476 |
|
Self-efficacy for fever management |
|
|
|
|
–2.06 (.046) |
|
-1.35 (.183) |
|
.58 (.563) |
|
|
|
|
Exp. |
15.79±3.89 |
20.67±3.82 |
21.88±3.25 |
4.88±2.85 |
|
6.08±3.31 |
|
1.21±3.18 |
|
G |
0.014 |
.906 |
|
Cont. |
17.27±4.53 |
20.04±4.71 |
21.73±4.88 |
2.77±4.29 |
|
4.46±5.05 |
|
1.69±2.65 |
|
T |
20.006 |
<.001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G×T |
1.473 |
.236 |
REFERENCES
- 1. Göbekli A, Güney R. Experiences and practices of mothers with children 0-5 age group on fever management: a mixed methods study. J Clin Nurs. 2023;32(13-14):3757-3774. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.16593
- 2. Kang TS, Kim SC, Jung SM, Lee SB, Kim DH, Park IS, et al. Usefulness of blood cultures in children aged under 3 years with fever at the emergency department. J Korean Soc Emerg Med. 2013;24(1):77-82.
- 3. Yıldırım M, Akın HY, Kaya A, Gündüz B. Determination of factors affecting fever management of parents who bring their children to the emergency department with high fever. J Pediatr Emerg Intensive Care Med. 2025;12(1):7-13. https://doi.org/10.4274/cayd.galenos.2024.66487
- 4. Gulcan MK, Sahiner NC. Determining the fever-related knowledge and practices of mothers with children aged 1-5 years presenting to a child emergency service with fever complaints in Turkiye. J Pediatr Nurs. 2023;69:e13-e20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2022.11.024
- 5. Kim HJ, Koo HY. Correlations between obtaining fever management information from the internet and knowledge and practices of fever management by mothers of infants and toddlers. Child Health Nurs Res. 2020;26(2):190-200. https://doi.org/10.4094/chnr.2020.26.2.190
- 6. Kim SH. Parental knowledge, anxiety and management of children’s fever [master’s thesis]. Seoul: Ewha Womans University; 2008.
- 7. Hamideh Kerdar S, Himbert C, Martin DD, Jenetzky E. Cross-sectional study of parental knowledge, behaviour and anxiety in management of paediatric fever among German parents. BMJ Open. 2021;11(10):e054742. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054742
- 8. Paul SP, Kini PK, Tibrewal SR, Heaton PA. NICE guideline review: fever in under 5s: assessment and initial management (NG143). Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed. 2022;107(3):212-216. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2021-321718
- 9. Kim JS. Childhood fever management: current practice vs evidence. Child Health Nurs Res. 2016;22(2):126-136. https://doi.org/10.4094/chnr.2016.22.2.126
- 10. Arias D, Chen TF, Moles RJ. Educational interventions on fever management in children: a scoping review. Nurs Open. 2019;6(3):713-721. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.294
- 11. Kelly M, Sahm LJ, Shiely F, O'Sullivan R, McGillicuddy A, McCarthy S. Parental knowledge, attitudes and beliefs regarding fever in children: an interview study. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:540. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3224-5
- 12. Hu F, Zhang J, Shi S, Zhou Z. Fever management in the emergency department of the Children’s Hospital of Fudan University: a best practice implementation project. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016;14(9):358-366. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-003072
- 13. Abbey M, Bartholomew LK, Pappoe M, van den Borne B. Treating fever in children under 5 years of age: caregiver perceptions of community health worker services in Dangme West district, Ghana. Int Health. 2015;7(6):455-463. https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihv027
- 14. Chang LC, Lee PI, Guo NW, Huang MC. Effectiveness of simulation-based education on childhood fever management by Taiwanese parents. Pediatr Neonatol. 2016;57(6):467-473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedneo.2015.10.011
- 15. Chang LC, Huang MC. Efficacy of scenario simulation-based education in relieving parental anxiety about fever in children. J Pediatr Nurs. 2021;61:102-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2021.03.024
- 16. Tavan A, Monemi E, Keshavarz F, Kazemi B, Nematollahi M. The effect of simulation-based education on parental management of fever in children: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Nurs. 2022;21(1):168. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-00938-7
- 17. Reilly A, Spratt C. The perceptions of undergraduate student nurses of high-fidelity simulation-based learning: a case report from the University of Tasmania. Nurse Educ Today. 2007;27(6):542-550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2006.08.015
- 18. Chernikova O, Heitzmann N, Stadler M, Holzberger D, Seidel T, Fischer F. Simulation-based learning in higher education: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res. 2020;90(4):499-541. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933544
- 19. Lv K, Zhao J, Zhang P. The effect of community comprehensive nursing using scenario-based health education on the infant and young child immunization rates. Am J Transl Res. 2021;13(8):9663-9670.
- 20. Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(3):361-366. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.94.3.361
- 21. Jeong YS, Oh HE, Kim JS. Parents’ perception, knowledge and self-efficacy in management of childhood fever. J Korean Acad Child Health Nurs. 2010;16(4):324-333. https://doi.org/10.4094/jkachn.2010.16.4.324
- 22. Walsh A, Edwards H, Fraser J. Attitudes and subjective norms: determinants of parents’ intentions to reduce childhood fever with medications. Health Educ Res. 2009;24(3):531-545. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyn055
- 23. Jeong YS. Development and effects of a parent education program for childhood fever management [dissertation]. Seoul. Ewha Womans University; 2011.
- 24. Ahn H, Shin H. Pediatrics. Seoul: Mirae N; 2016.
- 25. Jeong YS, Kim JS. Fever and fever management in children: a literature review. J Korean Acad Child Health Nurs. 2010;16(1):30-40. https://doi.org/10.4094/jkachn.2010.16.1.30
- 26. Jang SS. Effect of the fever education program on the pediatric nurses’ knowledge, attitudes and nursing practice [master’s thesis]. Gwangju: Gwangju Womans University; 2016.
- 27. Kim HR, Choi EJ. Development of a scenario and evaluation for SimBaby simulation learning of care for children with fever in emergency units. J Korea Contents Assoc. 2011;11(6):279-288. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2011.11.6.279
- 28. Toksoz F, Acikgoz A. Randomized controlled study: the effect of video-based distance education for approaching children with fever on parents’ knowledge levels and fever management. J Pediatr Nurs. 2024;76:e42-e49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2024.01.017
- 29. Park MH. The development and effects of children first aid simulation education program for mothers of preschool children [dissertation]. Seoul: Korea University; 2022.
