Pain management interventions with parents in the emergency department: a randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is a report of the efficacy of a parental educational intervention on children's pain intensity and experience of pain-related unpleasantness at 24 hours post-discharge from the emergency department, and on parents' beliefs about pain. BACKGROUND: Parents' misbeliefs about pain management may inhibit them from managing their child's pain appropriately. Educating parents about pain management may increase their knowledge, dispel myths and help decrease children's pain intensity and unpleasantness related to pain following a visit to an emergency department. METHOD: A randomized design was adopted with samples of parent/child dyads. The experimental group received a bookmark, booklet on pain management and pain scale. The control group only received a pain scale. Pain intensity and unpleasantness were measured at triage and 24 hours after discharge from the emergency department. Parents' beliefs were measured with the Pain Belief Questionnaire. Data were collected from November 2005 to May 2006. RESULTS: Samples of 98 (experimental) and 97 (control) children/parents were recruited. No statistically significant differences were found between both groups regarding pain intensity and unpleasantness, at triage and 24 hours post-discharge. Results for the Pain Belief Questionnaire were similar between the groups (t = 1·751, P = 0·082). CONCLUSION: The interventions were not effective to reduce pain and unpleasantness related to pain, as well as to improve pain beliefs of parents. Other interventions, such as having parents participate actively in their child's pain management, might be more effective than a passive educational intervention.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".