No pain – all gain: Advocating for improved paediatric pain management
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Children experience a wide variety of acute, recurrent and chronic pains. A recent epidemiological study in southwestern Ontario found that the majority of school-aged children (96%) experienced acute pain (eg, injury-related pains, headache, sore muscles, toothaches) over the past month, 57% reported having at least one recurrent pain (eg, headaches, stomach pains and growing pains), and 6% were found to have chronic pain (eg, illness-related pain, back pain) (1). Pain complaints are one of the top reasons for patient-doctor encounters in primary care settings. Pain in children is now recognized as a major health problem because of its prevalence (1,2), negative impact on all aspects of quality of life (3) and economic burden (4). The treatment and alleviation of pain is a basic human right (5). Researchers have demonstrated that well-managed acute pain is associated with faster recoveries, fewer complications and decreased use of health care resources (6). However, research continues to uncover and document the prevalence of unrelieved pain in infants and children, despite evidence of physiological and psychological negative consequences (7,8). For example, two surveys (9,10) in Canadian paediatric hospitals indicated that there has been no significant change in the levels of pain experienced by infants and children or the frequency of the administration of pain-relieving interventions over the past decade. In both studies, researchers found that approximately 50% of patients reported clinically significant levels of pain and consistently received less analgesia than was prescribed (9,10). As a result, children are still suffering needlessly, despite the availability of adequate pain control for most pain problems. Therefore, it is our hope that this special issue on pain in Paediatrics & Child Health will set the stage for a better understanding of the critical role that health care professionals play in the assessment and treatment of pain in infants, children and youth. Most pain is preventable, or at least treatable. There are many things that primary care physicians, paediatricians and other allied health care professionals can do to reduce or eliminate pain. Pain can be effectively managed using a wide range of pharmacological, physical and psychological approaches. Effectively managing pain enhances children's lives and the lives of their parents and health care professionals. The present issue focuses on practical strategies that we can all implement in our everyday practices to help children who have pain. For example, in the articles by MacLaren and Cohen on procedural pain (pages 111 to 116) and by Jacobson on common medical pains (pages 105 to 109), evidence-based pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions are discussed. Furthermore, given that pain is a complex, multidimensional phenomenon, the articles by von Baeyer (pages 121 to 125) and Eccleston and Clinch (pages 117 to 120) speak to the need for interdisciplinary and multimodal approaches to treat recurrent and chronic pain in children and adolescents. The need for evidence-based pain management has been acknowledged by professional organizations (eg, American Academy of Pediatrics in 2000; Canadian Paediatric Society in 2000; Canadian Pain Society in 1997) (5,11) and quality care initiatives, and has been a focus of patient safety initiatives such as the Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation pain standards (12). There is now a plethora of evidence-based guidelines based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses that may be used to direct our assessment and treatment of pain in children. Thus, the undertreatment of pain in children can no longer be attributed to a lack of research evidence, but rather to our inability to use what we know in our everyday practices. As clinicians, we have an individual and collective responsibility to decrease pain and suffering in children by narrowing the gap between clinical practice and the research evidence supporting optimal patient care. The joint statement with the American Academy of Pediatrics (pages 137 to 138) and an article by McMurtry on the management of needle pain in children (pages 101 to 102) set the stage for this to happen by outlining ways to implement evidence-based guidelines in clinical practice settings. Other barriers to optimal assessment and treatment of pain in children include a lack of community-based resources (especially for the treatment of recurrent and chronic pain), misconceptions about pain in infants and children, and the lack of education and training in pain for family practitioners, paediatricians and other health care professionals. There are certain assumptions or beliefs that influence health care professionals' clinical decision making about the presence or absence of pain, actions taken, and evaluation of patient outcomes. For example, health care professionals continue to believe that infants and young children are less sensitive to pain than adults, that they are incapable of expressing or adequately describing their pain, and that opioids are more dangerous for infants and children than adults, despite evidence to the contrary. The commentary by Kavanagh and Watt-Watson (pages 97 to 99) provides one example of an innovative interactive interdisciplinary approach to the training of health care professionals that strives to correct these misconceptions and close the research-to-practice gap. Finally, parental attitudes have also been found to handicap adequate pain treatment. Unlike adult patients, pain management in children is often dependent on the ability of the parent to recognize and assess pain and on their decision to treat or not treat it (3). In addition, educating patients and their families about pain and its management has been shown to decrease anxiety, pain intensity and misconceptions regarding pain management (13). The Canadian Pain Society position statement notes that the “best pain management involves patients, families and health professionals” (5). Therefore, primary care physicians, paediatricians and nurses play a key role in educating parents regarding the assessment and management of pain in children. There are also several resources that have been developed across Canada to provide children and families with information about pain, including the Caring for Kids Web site and the AboutKidsHealth Web site . The latter Web site was developed in collaboration with the pain team at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario. It is our hope that this special issue on pain in children will inspire readers to make pain a priority in their everyday practices and advocate for improving the assessment and management of pain in children, so that there is all gain from having no pain.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».