Development and Mixed‐Methods Evaluation of a Pain Assessment Video Training Program for Long‐Term Care Staff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Inadequacies in pain assessment and management in long-term care have been well documented. Insufficient pain education and inaccurate beliefs about the nature of pain and aging have been identified as possible contributors. The present study addresses the need for improved, efficient and feasible continuing pain education through the use of an assessment training video. METHODS: A total of 148 long-term care staff viewed and evaluated the training video. Knowledge changes and pain beliefs were assessed postvideo and at a four-week follow-up. Beliefs about pain, as well as pain and aging, were also examined using multivariate procedures to determine whether these variables influenced participants' evaluation of the video. Focus groups were also conducted, and transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Pain assessment knowledge improved postvideo and at the four-week follow-up. Participants positively evaluated the content and quality of the video. Individuals who held stronger beliefs (at baseline) about the organic nature of pain provided more positive evaluations. Barriers to implementation of practices in the video identified by the focus groups (and qualitative analysis) included time, workload and resistance to change. Facilitators to implementation included continued management support and observing the benefits to implementation. DISCUSSION: The present study provides support for the use of video training. However, based on the focus group results, top-down implementation approaches with ongoing management involvement throughout the implementation process may be needed to achieve sustained changes in pain assessment practices. A model useful for sustained implementation was proposed and discussed, and is hoped to facilitate future research.
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 | 0.027 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".