Parents' experiences of managing their child's postoperative pain at home: an exploratory qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To understand parents' experiences of managing their child's postoperative pain at home. BACKGROUND: Recent changes in children's health care services often shift the responsibility of managing children's postoperative pain to parents. Although pain management is important for good postoperative outcomes, it can be a challenging task for families, and children's pain is often under-managed. DESIGN: This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews to explore parents' experiences of managing their child's postoperative pain at home. METHODS: Participants were parents of 10 typically developing 5- and 6-year olds, who underwent (adeno)tonsillectomy, and experienced no complications leading to hospitalisation in the postoperative period. One-on-one interviews were conducted with parents within three months of their child's surgery. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and content analysis was used to identify themes in parents' experiences. RESULTS: All children experienced some postoperative pain. Parents' experiences of managing their child's pain were impacted by balancing the pros and cons of administering analgesic medications, managing the emotional and psychological effects of their child's pain, as well as parents' information needs. CONCLUSIONS: Most parents' information needs were met yet they still struggled to manage their child's pain. These findings provide insight into some of the barriers that make this process challenging for many families, and what health care centres can do to help support parents manage their child's postoperative pain at home. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The results of this study may aid in the design of interventions that will support parents when managing their child's postoperative pain at home and thus improve children's experiences.
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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".