Immunizing Children Who Fear and Resist Needles: Is It a Problem for Nurses?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing evidence that immunization procedures can be stressful for children, little is known about what the experience of immunizing frightened and needle-resistant children can be like for nurses. METHOD: This article presents findings from a qualitative research project designed to explore public health nurses' feelings toward immunizing needle-resistant children. A constructivist theoretical perspective and an action research approach framed the study. Data sources included two survey questions and audio-recorded transcribed data from three focus groups. Participants included 35 public health nurses from five different health units in one Canadian province. The data were analyzed for themes and were confirmed with participants through ongoing member checking. RESULTS: The following four overarching themes were identified and are used to explain and describe significant features of the immunization experience that were stressful and problematic for nurses: (a) nurses experience stress when immunizing children who fear and resist needle injection; (b) the strength of child resistance and some adult behavior creates an ethical dilemma for nurses; (c) some adult responses make immunizing difficult and unsafe; and (d) resources to help nurses cope with these situations are inconsistent.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".