Children's and parents’ perceptions of postoperative pain management: a mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore children's and parents' perceptions about the quality of postoperative pain management. BACKGROUND: Children continue to experience moderate to severe pain postoperatively. Unrelieved pain has short- and long-term undesirable consequences. Thus, it is important to ensure pain is managed effectively. Little research has explored children's and parents' perceptions of pain management. DESIGN: Exploratory study. METHODS: Children (n = 8) were interviewed about their perceptions of pain care using the draw-and-write technique or a semi-structured format and asked to rate the worst pain experienced postoperatively on a numerical scale. Parents (n = 10) were asked to complete the Information About Pain questionnaire. Data were collected in 2011. RESULTS: Most children experienced moderate to severe pain postoperatively. Children reported being asked about their pain, receiving pain medication and using nonpharmacological methods of pain relief. A lack of preoperative preparation was evident for some children. Most parents indicated they had received information on their child's pain management. Generally, participants were satisfied with care. CONCLUSION: Participants appeared satisfied with the care provided despite experiencing moderate to severe pain. This may be attributable to beliefs that nurses would do everything they could to relieve pain and that some pain is to be expected postsurgery. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Children are still experiencing moderate to severe pain postoperatively. Given the possible short- and long-term consequences of unrelieved pain, this is of concern. Knowledge translation models may support the use of evidence in practice, and setting a pain goal with parents and children may help improve care.
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 | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".