Judgments of Pain in the Neonatal Intensive Care Setting: A Survey of Direct Care Staffs' Perceptions of Pain in Infants at Risk for Neurological Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether healthcare professionals believe the pain of infants at risk for neurologic impairment differs from that of typical infants. SETTING: Neonatal intensive care units at 2 tertiary pediatric centers in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-nine healthcare professionals who practice in the neonatal intensive care unit (51 nurses, 19 physicians, 18 respiratory therapists, 11 other). MAJOR MEASURES: Participants completed the Pain Opinion Questionnaire. It elicits beliefs regarding the similarity of the pain experienced by infants at mild, moderate, and severe risk for neurologic impairment relative to those without risk for neurologic impairment along 5 pain facets (ie, sensation, emotional reaction, behavioral reaction, communication, incidence). RESULTS: Pain Opinion Questionnaire scores varied by level of risk of neurologic impairment (mild, moderate, severe) and pain facet. Respondents believed infants with risk were overall less likely to experience pain similar to infants without risk as the level of risk increased [F(2,97) = 66.0, P < 0.001] and were more likely to have a reduced pain experience relative to infants without risk as the level of risk increased [F(2,97) = 62.2, P < 0.001]. Pain Opinion Questionnaire scores did not vary due to profession, experience, gender, or age. CONCLUSION: Professionals expressed the belief that neurologically impaired infants' pain experience is reduced, relative to infants without impairment, as their level of risk for neurologic impairment increases. This belief did not vary due to professional experience or personal factors. Future studies should investigate the source of these beliefs and their impact on the pain management provided to infants with risk for neurologic impairment.
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 | 0.037 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".