Pain management strategies used during early childhood immunisation in <scp>V</scp>ictoria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The study aims to identify pain management practices used during scheduled childhood immunisation. METHODS: A survey of members of the Australian Nurses Federation (Victorian Branch) Immunisation Nurses Special Interest Group. Questions included frequency of use of pain reduction strategies during immunisations for infants, toddlers and children, injection techniques and existence of an articulated pain management policy. RESULTS: The survey was emailed to 274 Immunisation Nurses Special Interest Group members with registered email addresses, and 125 (46%) completed the survey. Nineteen respondents (15.2%) stated their main place of employment had a pain management policy during immunisations and 20 (16.0%) respondents were not sure. Distraction strategies were frequently used during immunisation for all age groups, with 95 (76.0%) replying that distraction was used often or always. Breastfeeding during immunisation for infants younger than 6 months was used occasionally (n = 54, 44.6%), often (n = 11, 9.1%) or never (n = 55, 45.5%) and was used even less frequently for infants aged 6-12 months. Sucrose or other sweet solutions were almost never used for infants prior to, or during, immunisation. As a reward, lollies were frequently given to children after immunisations. Topical anaesthetics were almost never used in any age groups. Over half the respondents used a rapid injection technique; 55 (44.7%) used a slow technique and four respondents aspirated the needle before injections. CONCLUSIONS: Many distraction strategies were used during and following immunisation but sweet solutions, breastfeeding or topical anaesthetics were rarely used. Use of these strategies where feasible, should be facilitated in diverse settings where immunisations take place.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".