Procedural pain in neonates in <scp>A</scp>ustralian hospitals: A survey update of practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The study aims to determine whether there has been improved uptake of the evidence for the management of procedural pain in neonates throughout Australia. METHODS: An Australian-wide survey was undertaken to determine the use of breastfeeding and sucrose and whether a clinical practice guideline (CPG) or pain assessment tool was used. RESULTS: Data were available from 196 (91%) of the 215 eligible hospitals. A CPG informed the management of neonatal pain in 76 (39%) of the hospitals. There was wide variation in their use between the states, and a significantly higher use of a CPG in higher-level care units. A pain assessment tool was only used in 21 (11%) of the units with greater use in the higher level care neonatal intensive care units (50%) and surgical neonatal intensive care units (80%). Awareness of breastfeeding for procedural pain was reported by 90% of the 196 respondents while 78% reported that it was actually used. Awareness of sucrose for procedural pain was lower than breastfeeding at 79%, with 53% reporting that they used sucrose in their unit. Overall, 89% of the respondents reported that either breastfeeding or sucrose was used for the management of procedural pain in their units. CONCLUSION: There has been an increase in awareness and use of sucrose and breastfeeding for procedural pain in Australia since previous surveys were undertaken in 2004. Continued resources, local pain champions and a national interest group to promote the use of pain management for procedural pain in neonates are needed for continued uptake of the evidence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".