Parental Judgments of Infant Pain: Importance of Perceived Cognitive Abilities, Behavioural Cues and Contextual Cues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite blatant indications, such as behavioural and contextual cues, infant pain is often undermanaged by adult caretakers. The belief that infants are limited in their abilities to comprehend the meaning of an experience or recall that experience has been used to minimize or deny the need for intervention in this vulnerable population. OBJECTIVES: This investigation explored parental beliefs regarding the impact of infant cognitive capabilities, behavioural cues and contextual cues to their pain judgments. Particular interest was focused on their beliefs regarding the general cognitive capabilities of infants of different ages. METHODS: Forty-nine parents viewed videotapes of healthy infants, aged two, four, six, 12 and 18 months, receiving routine immunization injections and provided judgements of the severity of pain on a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale. Upon completion of their pain judgements for each of the five age groups (two infants per age group; 10 infants total), parents completed questionnaires regarding their beliefs about the capabilities of infants in that age group and then reported the importance of the various cues utilized to formulate their pain judgements. RESULTS: Parents attributed substantial pain to infants in all age groups, almost twice the amount they hypothesized an adult undergoing a similar injection would experience. The cues rated as most important for judgements were similar for infants of varying ages. Overall, facial expressions, sounds and body movements were consistently reported to be most important. Parents acknowledged the development of memory and understanding of pain throughout infancy. However, these beliefs were not deemed by parents as important to their pain ratings, nor were their importance ratings directly related to the pain ratings. CONCLUSION: Parents judged that infants undergoing a routine immunization were experiencing clinically significant levels of pain. However, despite generally acknowledging a developing trajectory for memory and understanding across the five age groups, parents did not indicate that a child's ability to remember and understand pain were essential features of their pain judgements. The results indicated that memory and understanding did not influence parental judgements of infant pain demonstrating the validity of the parents' self-assessments.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".