Parental Administration of Analgesic Medication in Children After a Limb Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To document parental administration of analgesic medication to children with pain from acute limb injury before coming to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: Research assistants interviewed parents of children 0 to 18 years old who presented to the ED with acute limb injury, asking about analgesic use before arriving to the ED. Parents were also asked for personal and demographic information. Parents who did not give pharmacological analgesia were asked why they decided not to administer medications. All parents were asked if they will administer analgesia in the future. RESULTS: A total of 72% of parents administered analgesia (pharmacological or others) to their children. Only 28% of the children received pharmacological analgesics before arriving to the ED. Child's mean age was higher for the group receiving medications, compared with those not receiving medications (99 +/- 50 vs 122 +/- 52 months, respectively; P = 0.005). The main parental concern about analgesic use was of potential masking of the clinical signs and symptoms before being seen by a physician. CONCLUSIONS: Prehospital analgesic administration by parents is mainly nonpharmacological largely because of parental concern of interference with medical assessment or underestimating the child's pain. Parental concern of masking symptoms and parental perception of no pain in a child were significant factors in determining parental comfort level in using pharmacological analgesics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".