Facilitating Respite, Communication, and Care for Children With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: Preliminary Evaluation of the Caregiver Pain Information Guide
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Pain is common in children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) and yet is an understudied issue. Respite workers commonly care for children with I/DD but are lacking in resources to assist in pain assessment and management for this population. Without adequate knowledge in this domain, children with I/DD are at risk of their pain being underrecognized and undermanaged. A resource for caregivers was developed to address this issue, facilitating communication between parents and respite workers and better addressing the complex pain-related needs of children with I/DD. The objective of this study was to solicit initial feedback on the content, feasibility, and usability of the resource. Method/Procedure: Semistructured individual interviews and questionnaires were completed with 7 parents of children with I/DD and 6 respite workers. Results: All participants viewed the resource as important and potentially useful. Content analyses indicated that participants appreciated the comprehensiveness and format of the resource, whereas the modifiability was identified as an area for improvement. Participants believed that the resource would be useful across settings with a variety of caregivers. Three categories of considerations were identified as potential facilitators and barriers for implementation: consideration of how the resource is being completed, who is completing it, and organization-based procedures. Discussion/Conclusions: Results from this study suggest that the Caregiver Pain Information Guide is a promising resource for helping respite workers better understand pain in children with I/DD. Future work is needed on implementation and impact of this resource in community settings. Implications for Impact Statement Children with intellectual and developmental disabilities experience pain frequently and are at risk of having their pain missed by caregivers. Parents would like to share pain-related knowledge and skills specific to their children with intellectual and developmental disabilities with those who support their child in other settings. The Caregiver Pain Information Guide was created to facilitate communication between parents and caregivers of these children. The current article discusses initial feedback from parents and respite workers regarding this new tool.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,076 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».