Adult–Child Interactions in the Postanesthesia Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many children experience significant distress before and after surgery. Previous studies indicate that healthcare providers' and parents' behaviors may influence children's outcomes. This study examines the influence of adults' behaviors on children's distress and coping in the postanesthesia care unit. METHODS: Children aged 2-10 yr were videotaped during their postanesthesia care unit stay (n = 146). Adult and child behaviors were coded from video, including the onset, duration, and order of behaviors. Correlations were used to examine relations between behaviors, and time-window sequential statistical analyses were used to examine whether adult behaviors cued or followed children's distress and coping. RESULTS: Sequential analysis demonstrated that children were significantly less likely to become distressed after an adult used empathy, distraction, or coping/assurance talk than they were at any other time. Conversely, if a child was already distressed, children were significantly more likely to remain distressed if an adult used reassurance or empathy than they were at any other time. Children were more likely to display coping behavior (e.g., distraction, nonprocedural talk) after an adult used this behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Adults can influence children's distress and coping in the postanesthesia care unit. Empathy, distraction, and assurance talk may be helpful in keeping a child from becoming distressed, and nonprocedural talk and distraction may cue children to cope. Reassurance should be avoided when a child is already distressed.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".