Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Acute Wound Care Distress in Burn Injured Pediatric Patients: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute wound care distress among burn injured pediatric patients is of major clinical concern. A literature review regarding non-pharmacological interventions to reduce this distress was completed and the evidence regarding associated benefits evaluated. Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane electronic databases were searched using key terms-children, burn and psychological for articles regarding overall psychological effects of pediatric burn injury. Searches yielded approximately 900 titles and abstracts. Authors (MH and MG) reviewed each one and retrieved 197 articles with 37 selected for the overall review. Of these 37 articles, 11 focused upon acute wound care distress and non-pharmacological interventions. Quality was assessed using the US Preventive Task Force Services guideline for non-RCTs. Eleven articles were reviewed and categorized as to intervention type; child mediated (CM), parent mediated (PM) and health care provider (HCPM) mediated. The HCPM interventions evaluated massage therapy and wound care that emphasized patient control and wound care predictability. The CM interventions evaluated methods of imagery, relaxation and distraction. These two intervention categories reported patient benefit. Long-term benefit was not discernable due to study emphasis upon immediate outcomes. The PM interventions did not report patient benefit. Research quality of the 11 articles was rated with 8 rated fair or good and 3 rated poor. Research studies of non-pharmacological interventions for distress reduction were few. In addition, 3/11 intervention articles received quality ratings of poor. Patient benefit was reported for HCPM and CM interventions. Emphasis upon future research regarding HCPM and CM interventions versus PM interventions would therefore appear warranted. Evaluation of long-term outcomes is needed to better understand the association between acute wound care distress following burn injury and long-term psychopathology related to burn injury. Future research designs incorporating larger sample sizes and control groups are needed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".