The results showed that the study subjects i.e. caregivers (mothers and fathers) and nursing personnel were in the range (23-53) years with mean ± SD of 31.88 ± 5.44 years, (26-56) with mean ± SD of 34.56 ± 5.71 and 23-37 with mean ± SD of 27.63 ± 5.12 years respectively. 32 caregivers and 8 nursing personnel participated in the study. As per educational qualification, out of 32 caregivers 37.5% mothers were educated up to senior secondary and 43.8% fathers were graduate. 50% nursing personnel were having professional qualification of GNM course and remaining were graduate with B.Sc. Nursing degree. 37.5% nursing personnel had more than 5 years of experience in pediatric surgical care units.
Clinical profile of caregivers revealed that three fourth (81.3%) of mothers conceived the affected pregnancy between the age 21-30 years with mean ± SD 25.63 ±5.29. Two third of mothers (65.6%) had taken folic acid tablets after first month of conception. Out of 21 mothers, only 3 (9.4%) had started folic acid intake during first month, remaining 7 (21.9 %), 5 (15.6%) and 6 (18.8) had started folic acid intake during second month, third month and fourth month of affected pregnancy respectively. Family history of hypospadias was present in 8 patients (25%). (Table 1)
Table 1 : Socio-demographic and Clinical profile of Caregivers
(N=32)
Variable
|
n(%)
|
Mother’s age (Years )
21-30
31-40
>40
|
13 (40.6)
17 (53.1)
2 (6.2)
|
Mother’s age at conception(in years)
Less than 20
21-30
More than 30
|
4 (12.5)
26 (81.3)
2 (6.2)
|
Folic acid intake during affected pregnancy
Yes
No
|
21 (65.6)
11 (34.4)
|
Duration of folic acid intake
First month
Second month
Third month
Fourth month
|
3 (9.4)
7 (21.9)
5 (15.6)
6 (18.8)
|
Father’s age (Years)
21-30
31-40
>40
|
7 (21.9)
23 (71.9)
2 (6.2)
|
Education of mother
Illiterate
Primary
Secondary
Senior Secondary
Graduate or above
|
1 (3.1)
1 (3.1)
8 (25.0)
12 (37.5)
10 (31.3)
|
Education of Father
Secondary
Senior Secondary
Graduate or above
|
10 ( 31.3)
8 (25.0)
14 ( 43.8 )
|
Family history of hypospadias
Maternal
Paternal
|
3 (9.4)
5 (15.6)
|
Mean ± SD of age of Mothers in Years (Range ) 31.88 ± 5.44 (23-53)
Mean ± SD of age of Fathers in Years (Range) 34.56 ± 5.71( 26-56)
Mean ± SD age of Mother in Years (Range) at Conception 25.63 ± 5.29( 20-48)
In phase 1 after assessment it was observed that only physicians were doing urethral calibration. There was no involvement of caregivers and nursing personnel in calibration of neo-urethra. In phase 2 the protocol on urethral calibration in hospital setting and in home setting was developed by extensive review literature and validated using Delphi technique. Inter-rater reliability was established for observational checklist by using Cohn’s kappa. There was almost perfect agreement between investigator and expert (k=0.91). During training, it was found that after first return demonstration none of the caregiver was fully trained, after second return demonstration 15.6% , third return demonstration 43.7% and rest of the caregivers were fully trained after fourth return demonstration (fig 1).
Related to nursing personnel after their first return demonstration 12.5% were fully trained, after their second return demonstration 87.5% were fully trained and rest were fully trained after their third return demonstration(fig 2).
Mean performance score of caregivers while getting trained for urethral calibration during subsequent observations were 8.31±2.87, 14.38±2.93, 18.38±2.61 and 22.75±1.10 in 1st ,2nd ,3rd and 4th observation respectively. The score for nursing personnel were 13.50±2.97, 18.25±1.66 and 23.50±0.92 in 1st,2nd and 3rd observation respectively (table 2).
It was found that there was significant difference in mean scores with subsequent observations in both the groups.
Table 2: Comparison of mean score of caregivers and nursing personnel during training on Urethral calibration
(N=32)(N=8)
Observation
|
Mean ± SD
|
Range
|
F (df, df error)
p-value
|
|
Observation 1
|
8.31±2.87
|
4-14
|
334.2
(2.47, 76.7)
<0.001**
|
|
Observation 2
|
14.38±2.93
|
8-20
|
|
Observation 3
|
18.38±2.61
|
14-22
|
|
Observation 4
|
22.75±1.10
|
20-24
|
|
Mean score of Nursing Personnel
|
|
Observation 1
|
13.50±2.97
|
10-18
|
48.04
(1.29,9.09)
<0.001**
|
|
Observation 2
|
18.25±1.66
|
16-20
|
|
Observation 3
|
23.50±0.92
|
22-24
|
Multiple comparisons between means of various observations of urethral calibration performed by caregivers of children revealed that a significant difference was observed in mean score of observation 1 compare to observation 2 and in other three subsequent observations (p <0.001)(Table 3).Related to urethral calibration performed by nursing personnel, multiple comparisons between means of various observations revealed that a significant difference was observed in mean score of observation 1 compare to observation 2 and in other two subsequent observations (p <0.001)(Table 4).
Table 3: Multiple comparisons among means of various observations of urethral calibration performed by caregivers of children with hypospadias
(N=32)
Observation (I)
|
Observation (J)
|
Mean Difference (I-J)
|
Std. Error
|
p-value
|
Observation 1
|
Observation 2
Observation 3
Observation 4
|
-6.06
-10.06
-14.43
|
0.564
0.520
0.522
|
<0.001*
<0.001*
<0.001*
|
Observation2
|
Observation 1
Observation 3
Observation 4
|
6.06
-4.00
-8.37
|
0.564
0.348
0.470
|
<0.001*
<0.001*
<0.001*
|
Observation 3
|
Observation 1
Observation 2
Observation 4
|
10.06
4.00
-4.37
|
0.520
0.348
0.386
|
<0.001*
<0.001*
<0.001*
|
Observation 4
|
Observation 1
Observation 2
Observation 3
|
14.43
8.37
4.37
|
0.522
0.470
0.386
|
<0.001*
<0.001*
<0.001*
|
(p <0.001)
Table 4: Multiple comparisons among means of various observations of urethral calibration performed by nursing personnel posted in pediatric Surgery OPD, APC
(N=8)
Observation (I)
|
Observation (J)
|
Mean Difference (I-J)
|
Std. Error
|
p-value
|
Observation 1
|
Observation 2
Observation 3
|
-4.750
-10.00
|
1.191
1.195
|
<0.001*
<0.001*
|
Observation2
|
Observation 1
Observation 3
|
4.750
-5.250
|
1.191
0.526
|
<0.001*
<0.001*
|
Observation 3
|
Observation 1
Observation 2
|
10.00
5.250
|
1.195
0.526
|
<0.001*
<0.001*
|
(p<0.001)