Identifying Risk Factors, Patient-Reported Experience and Outcome Measures, and Data Capture Tools for an Individualized Pain Prediction Tool in Pediatrics: Focus Group Study
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The perioperative period is a data-rich environment with potential for innovation through digital health tools and predictive analytics to optimize patients' health with targeted prehabilitation. Although some risk factors for postoperative pain following pediatric surgery are already known, the systematic use of preoperative information to guide personalized interventions is not yet widespread in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: Our long-term goal is to reduce the incidence of persistent postsurgical pain (PPSP) and long-term opioid use in children by developing personalized pain risk prediction models that can guide clinicians and families to identify targeted prehabilitation strategies. To develop such a system, our first objective was to identify risk factors, outcomes, and relevant experience measures, as well as data collection tools, for a future data collection and risk modeling study. METHODS: This study used a patient-oriented research methodology, leveraging parental/caregiver and clinician expertise. We conducted virtual focus groups with participants recruited at a tertiary pediatric hospital; each session lasted approximately 1 hour and was composed of clinicians or family members (people with lived surgical experience and parents of children who had recently undergone a procedure requiring general anesthesia) or both. Data were analyzed thematically to identify potential risk factors for pain, as well as relevant patient-reported experience and outcome measures (PREMs and PROMs, respectively) that can be used to evaluate the progress of postoperative recovery at home. This guidance was combined with a targeted literature review to select tools to collect risk factor and outcome information for implementation in a future study. RESULTS: In total, 22 participants (n=12, 55%, clinicians and n=10, 45%, family members) attended 10 focus group sessions; participants included 12 (55%) of 22 persons identifying as female, and 12 (55%) were under 50 years of age. Thematic analysis identified 5 key domains: (1) demographic risk factors, including both child and family characteristics; (2) psychosocial risk factors, including anxiety, depression, and medical phobias; (3) clinical risk factors, including length of hospital stay, procedure type, medications, and pre-existing conditions; (4) PREMs, including patient and family satisfaction with care; and (5) PROMs, including nausea and vomiting, functional recovery, and return to normal activities of daily living. Participants further suggested desirable functional requirements, including use of standardized and validated tools, and longitudinal data collection, as well as delivery modes, including electronic, parent proxy, and self-reporting, that can be used to capture these metrics, both in the hospital and following discharge. Established PREM/PROM questionnaires, pain-catastrophizing scales (PCSs), and substance use questionnaires for adolescents were subsequently selected for our proposed data collection platform. CONCLUSIONS: This study established 5 key data domains for identifying pain risk factors and evaluating postoperative recovery at home, as well as the functional requirements and delivery modes of selected tools with which to capture these metrics both in the hospital and after discharge. These tools have been implemented to generate data for the development of personalized pain risk prediction models.
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.
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 | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 découle