Parent Participation in a Childhood Immunization Pain Reduction Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This randomized controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of parent participation (PP) in an evidence-based method to reduce the pain of prekindergarten immunizations. METHODS: Healthy children aged 4 to 6 years were randomized to a multimodal distraction method during administration of routine vaccines with PP and 1 medical assistant (experimental group) or 2 medical assistants (standard-of-care comparison group). Children and parents rated the pain after injections, and a blinded observer coded children's pain from videotapes. RESULTS: In all, 76 children participated. Despite group randomization, more children in the medical assistant-only group received a 3-injection series (25; 68%) than in the PP group (6 [15%], P = .001). After adjustment for this imbalance, child-reported pain was higher in the PP group compared with the medical assistant-only group (2.95 vs 1.75; F = 5.87; df = 1.66; d = 0.64; P < .02). There were no differences between groups for parent-reported and observer-rated measures of pain or in intervention fidelity, duration of procedure, or child or parent satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Although child-reported pain was higher for the PP group, the magnitude of the difference may not be clinically significant. PP was feasible and acceptable to both parents and children, did not take any longer, and reduced the need for additional medical personnel. Together, these data provide preliminary support for PP for prekindergarten immunization pain management.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".