Pagers in a busy paediatric emergency waiting room: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test whether the distribution of pagers to waiting families in a paediatric emergency department (ED) increases satisfaction with the visit. METHODS: Using a controlled, randomized, single blind design, English-speaking families who had waited longer than 1 h were enrolled in the study. On any one day, every enrolled family was assigned to a no treatment group, an active control group in which children received a colouring set or an experimental group in which families were given pagers. A telephone questionnaire was used to measure the degree of satisfaction. Additional questions ascertained satisfaction with the pager and gathered other information. RESULTS: There were 23 families in the no treatment group, 18 in the active control group, and 20 in the experimental group. Demographic data were similar among the groups. Although satisfaction was higher in the experimental group, the differences between groups were not significant. The sex of the child or accompanying adult, waiting times, or classification as trauma or nontrauma did not influence the results. Families said pagers were useful (mean score 1.45 [1 = strongly agree]) and thought that the ED should use them (mean score 1.3). More families in the pager group left the waiting room while waiting to be seen (16 of 20 versus 19 of 40, P=0.016). The average score for finding the intervention helpful was 1.5 in the pager group and 3.06 in the colouring book group (P=0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a pager in the ED was viewed favourably by parents. However, overall satisfaction may be influenced more strongly by factors other than how the waiting time is spent.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".