Safety netting advice for acutely ill children presenting to ambulatory care: exploring parents’ opinions, ideas, and expectations through focus group interviews

Table 2 Participant validation

	Agreement score (median)^a	Agreement proportion^b	Coefficient of variation^c	Consensus (IQR)^d	Free comments^e
Theme 1	5/6	100%	0.14	1.00	“Certainly [of] good use and [the provider of SNA should] discuss limitations of [technical] examinations.” “Overlap for babies and toddlers with website [of]Kind en Gezin^f. [It would be] also good to know what are reliable online sources.”
Theme 2	6/6	90%	0.17	1.00	/
Theme 3	6/6	100%	0.13	1.00	/
Theme 4	5/6	85%	0.23	1.00	“Difficult to estimate at the beginning and having one and the same physician [i.e., GP] is a requirement. [Physicians taking into] consideration [parents’ perspectives] is limited to the extent that the well-being of the child remains the priority, [it is] also necessary to sometimes try and explain to the parents why some ideas are ‘not correct’.”
Theme 5	5/6	90%	0.22	2.00	“Especially for new parents (i.e. parents with less experience require this [category of SNA]) [a] multimodal way [of delivering SNA] seems to me like a large administrative burden.” “Yes, but [make sure] that it remains attainable for the physician in terms of workload.”

Abbreviations: SNA safety netting advice, IQR interquartile range
^aAgreement score on a 6-point Likert scale, should be at least 5 for agreement
^bAgreement proportion = proportion of panellists that at least slightly agreed, should be at least 75% for agreement
^cCoefficient of variation = standard deviation divided by mean, should be at or below 0.5 for agreement
^dConsensus among participants is determined by an IQR ≤ 1.75
^eFree comments translated from Dutch to English by RB
^fKind en Gezin’ (ENG: ‘The Child and Family Agency’) is a well child clinic agency of the Flemish Government

ISSN: 2731-4553