MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2380699866 · doi:10.1097/anc.0000000000000262

Staff Nurse Utilization of Kangaroo Care as an Intervention for Procedural Pain in Preterm Infants

2016· article· en· W2380699866 on OpenAlex
Britney Benoit, Marsha Campbell‐Yeo, Céleste Johnston, Margot Latimer, Kim Caddell, Talia Orr

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Neonatal Care · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntervention (counseling)Clinical PracticeNursing staffPain reliefPain managementNursingNeonatal intensive care unitPhysical therapyFamily medicinePediatricsAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Skin-to-skin contact between mother and infant, commonly referred to as Kangaroo Care (KC), has demonstrated efficacy as a pain-relieving strategy for infants, yet, it remains underutilized in clinical practice. PURPOSE: To evaluate changes in neonatal intensive care unit staff nurse beliefs, utilization, and challenges related to practice change in implementing KC as an intervention for management of procedural pain in preterm infants between 2 time points. METHODS: Nurses who participated in a larger clinical trial examining the sustained efficacy of KC were asked to complete a questionnaire at 2 time points: 1- and 6 month(s) following study initiation. Identified benefits, expectations, frequency of use, and challenges related to practice change uptake were described using frequencies and percentages. Data from the 2 different time points were compared using χ analysis. RESULTS: Of the 40 nurses approached, all completed the questionnaire (19 at the 1-month and 21 at the 6-month time point). Of the sample (n = 40), 97% of participants indicated that they expected KC to provide good pain relief or better. Staff nurses reported significantly improved preconceived ideas (χ = 22.68, P < .01) and significantly fewer concerns (χ = 22.10, P = .01) related to using KC as a pain-relieving intervention between the 2 time points. No significant differences were seen in the frequency of using KC as an intervention between time points. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE: Despite increasingly positive preconceived ideas and reduced concerns, the frequency of using KC for procedural pain relief remained unchanged. Further research addressing ways to overcome barriers to utilizing KC as an intervention for procedural pain is warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it