Children's Memory for Painful Procedures: The Relationship of Pain Intensity, Anxiety, and Adult Behaviors to Subsequent Recall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether children's experience of pain intensity and anxiety, and adult behaviors during venepuncture, were related to children's memories of the procedure. METHODS: Participants were 48 children (24 males, 24 females) between the ages of 5 and 10 years who underwent venepuncture. The venepunctures were videotaped and adult behaviors were coded. Children self-reported their pain intensity and anxiety immediately and 2 weeks following venepuncture and answered contextual questions at follow-up. RESULTS: Children who initially reported higher levels of pain tended to over-estimate their anxiety at follow-up, whereas children who reported lower levels of pain accurately- or under-estimated their anxiety. Staff coping-promoting behaviors predicted the accuracy of children's contextual memories. Staff and parent behaviors did not predict children's recalled pain intensity and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that children's direct experience of pain intensity and staff behaviors during venepuncture are related to their memories. These data highlight the importance of effective pain management during medical procedures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".