Systematic Review: Predisposing, Precipitating, Perpetuating, and Present Factors Predicting Anticipatory Distress to Painful Medical Procedures in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the factors predicting anticipatory distress to painful medical procedures in children. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted to identify studies with factors related to anticipatory distress to painful medical procedures in children aged 0-18 years. The search retrieved 7,088 articles to review against inclusion criteria. A total of 77 studies were included in the review. RESULTS: 31 factors were found to predict anticipatory distress to painful medical procedures in children. A narrative synthesis of the evidence was conducted, and a summary figure is presented. CONCLUSIONS: Many factors were elucidated that contribute to the occurrence of anticipatory distress to painful medical procedures. The factors that appear to increase anticipatory distress are child psychopathology, difficult child temperament, parent distress promoting behaviors, parent situational distress, previous pain events, parent anticipation of distress, and parent anxious predisposition. Longitudinal and experimental research is needed to further elucidate these factors.
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 | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".