ABSTRACT 24
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims: Approximately 25% of children demonstrate negative psychological outcomes following pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) hospitalization, yet few interventions target those outcomes. Aims: This pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) tested the feasibility and acceptability of a nursing-directed intervention promoting child comfort and psychological well-being associated with PICU hospitalization. Methods: Children aged 2 to 14 years admitted to PICU were randomized to intervention (IG: n=10) or control (CG: n=10) groups following Institutional Review Board approval. The comfort intervention consisted of: (1) parental soothing (touch and reading), and (2) earmuff application with music to reduce auditory stimulation. Comfort was assessed: (a) in PICU (Comfort scale, pain, sleep diaries), (b) on the wards (sleep actigraphy), and (c) 3 months post-discharge (anxiety, distress, sleep actigraphy). Intervention and methodological acceptability and feasibility were assessed via observation, measurement completion rates, semi-structured interviews, and telephone calls. Results: The intervention was acceptable to 100% of nurses. While 49% of parents approached agreed to participate, 70% and 100% of IG parents responded positively to the intervention’s soothing and music components, respectively. Most IG parents (70%) and all nurses felt children responded positively to the intervention; all nurses felt it was feasible. Measurement response rates ranged from 85% to 100%. Pilot data suggest lower IG child anxiety scores, better sleep quality on wards and at home, and larger decreases in IG parent anxiety onwards. Conclusions: Methods: were acceptable and feasible, and children responded positively to the intervention. Results: support the development of a full-scale RCT to evaluate the effectiveness of the comfort intervention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.575 | 0.342 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".