Perceptions of Health Professionals on Pain in Extremely Low Gestational Age Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extremely low gestational age infants (<28 weeks at birth) experience significant pain from repeated therapeutic procedures while hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care unit. As part of a program of research examining pain in preterm infants, we conducted a qualitatively driven mixed-methods design, supplemented with a qualitative and quantitative component, to understand how health care professionals (HCPs) assess and manage procedural pain for tiny and underdeveloped preterm infants. Fifty-nine HCPs from different disciplines across four tertiary-level neonatal units in Canada participated in individual or focus group interviews and completed a brief questionnaire. Four themes from the content analysis were (a) subtlety and unpredictability of pain indicators, (b) infant and caregiver attributes and contextual factors that influence pain response and practices, (c) the complex nature of pain assessment, and (d) uncertainty in the management of pain. The information gleaned from this study can assist in identifying gaps in knowledge and informing unit-based and organizational knowledge translation strategies for this vulnerable population.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".