Examining Nurse Empathy for Infant Procedural Pain: Testing a New Video Measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research reporting effective pain care strategies exists, yet it is not translated to care. Little is known about how repeated pain exposure has affected nurses' ability to be empathetic and use their knowledge to provide evidence-based care. Concerns have been raised regarding the validity of self-report empathy instruments; therefore, a novel video program was developed for testing. It was hypothesized that those who viewed infants in painful and nonpainful states would have a measureable empathy (pain rating) response correlating to the level of pain expressed by the infants. OBJECTIVE: To validate the newly developed Empathy for Infant Pain video program (EIPvp) by determining whether nurse and non-nurse control groups' pain scores of 24 video clips showing infants undergoing real medical procedures were equal. DESIGN: A descriptive cross-sectional video judgement study. METHODS: Fifty female participants (25 nurses and 25 allied health controls) were asked to score the infant procedural pain level displayed in the EIPvp using a visual analogue scale and a composite score of known infant pain cues. Participants also scored their own sensitivity to painful events. RESULTS: Participants rated the videos contained in the EIPvp similarly in three categories (no, low or high pain); however, there were consistent differences between groups within the categories. Nurses scored facial cues for all categories higher than the control group. Nurses scored their own pain in hypothetical situations and that of the infants consistently higher than the control group. CONCLUSION: The EIPvp yielded predictable responses from both the nurse and non-nurse control groups when scoring the pain expressed in the video clips. Nurses' detection of pain more often than controls may have been an indication that they have greater knowledge of pain cues, or their empathy levels may have been different as a result of their exposure to, or their perceived relationship with, patients. The EIPvp was validated and has promising potential for training and research purposes.
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 | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".