Psychosocial Influences on Acceptability and Feasibility of Salivary Cortisol Collection From Community Samples of Children.
Eileen M Condon
PMID 27686043WHAT IT FOUND
Families often found home salivary cortisol collection burdensome.
Precise timing, multiple samples, routines, and child refusal lowered adherence. Resistant children also had higher cortisol and more internalizing symptoms.
Key findings
01Most parents in one qualitative study reported no concerns, but some disliked saliva sampling or could not articulate their worries.
02Compliance with home sampling dropped from 72.9% on day one to 64.6% on day two in a preschool study.
03Preschool children who resisted saliva sampling had higher cortisol levels and more internalizing symptoms than non-resistant peers.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Most included studies did not explicitly study acceptability or feasibility; only 4 of 31 made it a primary objective. The review included only English-language human studies of healthy children age 12 or younger, and excluded clinical, laboratory, chronic illness, prematurity, and developmental disorder samples. It was an integrative review of secondary reports, not a new trial or patient study, so it cannot show that any strategy improves cortisol collection or child health. Reporting bias is possible: studies with few problems may not have reported them, and missing studies may have been overlooked because acceptability was mentioned briefly. Findings on ethnicity and family characteristics were inconsistent and mostly about perceived behavioral control, with little evidence on attitudes or social norms.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that salivary cortisol collection is acceptable or feasible for all community families. Most included studies did not explicitly test acceptability or feasibility, and the review reports barriers and missing data rather than a validated clinical outcome.