Procedural pain in neonatal units in Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the nature and frequency of painful procedures and procedural pain management practices in neonatal units in Kenya. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Level I and level II neonatal units in Kenya. PATIENTS: Ninety-five term and preterm neonates from seven neonatal units. METHODS: Medical records of neonates admitted for at least 24 h were reviewed to determine the nature and frequency of painful procedures performed in the 24 h period preceding data collection (6:00 to 6:00) as well as the pain management interventions (eg, morphine, breastfeeding, skin-to-skin contact, containment, non-nutritive sucking) that accompanied each procedure. RESULTS: Neonates experienced a total of 404 painful procedures over a 24 h period (mean=4.3, SD 2.0; range 1-12); 270 tissue-damaging (mean=2.85, SD 1.1; range 1-6) and 134 non-tissue-damaging procedures (mean=1.41, SD 1.2; range 0-6). Peripheral cannula insertion (27%) and intramuscular injections (22%) were the most common painful procedures. Ventilated neonates and neonates admitted in level II neonatal units had a higher number of painful procedures than those admitted in level I units (mean 4.76 vs 2.96). Only one procedure had a pain intensity score documented; and none had been performed with any form of analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: Neonates in Kenya were exposed to numerous tissue-damaging and non-tissue-damaging procedures without any form of analgesia. Our findings suggest that education is needed on how to assess and manage procedural pain in neonatal units in Kenya.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".