Implementation of Evidence-Based Psychological Interventions for Pediatric Needle Pain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Needle procedures are a painful and distressing experience for many children. There is a strong evidence base that demonstrates the efficacy of psychological interventions for reducing pain and distress during needle procedures. However, actual implementation of these strategies before, during, and after a needle procedure is affected by multiple factors that increase the complexity of delivery of these interventions in clinical settings. These challenges include application of evidence-based strategies to diverse populations that tend to be excluded from the research literature (e.g., children with developmental delays, children with needle anxiety or phobia), environmental barriers (e.g., providing pain management strategies for needle procedures in different settings), and practical or logistical issues (e.g., inadequate preparation time). We discuss these issues, provide practical suggestions for increasing access to evidence-based pain management strategies, and present three illustrative case examples. Pediatric psychologists may face challenges in implementing evidence-based strategies for needle pain and distress, but important opportunities for educating families and health professionals about the management of procedural pain from needles are available.
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.
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 | 0.021 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it