MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096930546 · doi:10.1080/01460860701366609

Nursing Care of Children after a Traumatic Incident

2007· review· en· W2096930546 on OpenAlexaff
Deanna Mulvihill

Bibliographic record

VenueIssues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionNursingNursing Interventions ClassificationTraumatic stressMedicineCoping (psychology)Exploratory researchPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to describe the nursing interventions with children and their parents to reduce the impact of a traumatic incident. A traumatic incident can be a natural disaster, a plane or car accident, or child abuse. The author has conducted an interdisciplinary integrative review of the research literature on the health impact of childhood trauma. This research is summarized and the results are synthesized and presented in a diagram that demonstrates the strong relationships that trauma has to both short and long-term health status. The impact of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and interventions to reduce its impact are described. Predictability and continuity in nursing care grounded in both routine and personnel are important. Nurses can teach self-soothing techniques and coping skills prior to using exploratory dialogue to assist the child and the parent in reviewing the traumatic incident. Nurses can also act as advocates for unsafe situations and practices, such as corporal punishment. Assessment of children for history of trauma is indicated, especially children who exhibit signs of short-term health effects. Areas for health education and future research are also presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.379 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssues in Comprehensive Pediatric NursingSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207