MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patients and ICU nurses' perspectives of non‐pharmacological interventions for pain management

2012· article· en· W2112706024 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing in Critical Care · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité de SherbrookeQuebec Network for Research on AgingMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersRéseau de recherche portant sur les interventions en sciences infirmières du Québec
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineMassageIntensive care unitIntervention (counseling)Nursing Interventions ClassificationQualitative researchActive listeningCognitionNursingPsychologyIntensive care medicineAlternative medicinePsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pain is a major stressor for critically ill patients. To maximize pain relief, non-pharmacological interventions are an interesting avenue to explore. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The study aim was to describe the perspectives of patients/family members and nurses about the usefulness, relevance and feasibility of non-pharmacological interventions for pain management in the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive design was used. METHODS: Patients/family members (n = 6) with a previous experience of ICU hospitalization and ICU nurses (n = 32) were recruited. Using a semi-structured discussion guide, participants were asked to share their perspective about non-pharmacological interventions that they found useful, relevant and feasible for pain management in the ICU. Interventions were clustered into five categories: a) cognitive-behavioural, b) physical, c) emotional support, d) helping with activities of daily living and, e) creating a comfortable environment. RESULTS: A total of eight focus groups (FGs) with patients/family members (two FGs) and ICU nurses (six FGs) were conducted. Overall, 33 non-pharmacological interventions were discussed. The top four non-pharmacological interventions found to be useful, relevant and feasible in at least half of the FGs were music therapy and distraction (cognitive-behavioural category), simple massage (physical category) and family presence facilitation (emotional support category). Interestingly, patients/family members and nurses showed different interests towards some interventions. For instance, patients discussed more about active listening/reality orientation, while nurses talked mostly about teaching/positioning. CONCLUSIONS: Four non-pharmacological interventions reached consensus in patients and nurses' FGs to be useful, relevant and feasible for pain management in the ICU. Other interventions seemed to be influenced by personal experience or professional role of the participants. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: While more evidence is required to conclude to their effectiveness, ICU nurses can use non-pharmacological interventions complementary to pharmacological treatment of pain as they are low cost and safe.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.389 · 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