A Longitudinal Examination of Verbal Reassurance During Infant Immunization: Occurrence and Examination of Emotional Availability as a Potential Moderator*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the associations between caregiver verbal reassurance and infant pain-related distress during immunization over the first year of life. The relationships between verbal reassurance and caregiver emotional availability (EA) were also examined. Finally, EA was investigated as a moderator of the relationship between verbal reassurance and infant pain. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted with 606 infants (and their parents) at 4 different ages (n = 376 at 2 months, n = 455 at 4 months, n = 484 at 6 months, and n = 407 at 12 months). RESULTS: Verbal reassurance was positively associated with infant distress across all four ages. EA was only negatively related to verbal reassurance at 12 months of age. EA was not a significant moderator at any age. CONCLUSION: Findings demonstrate consistent but small relationships between verbal reassurance and infant pain over the first year of life.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".