A Behavioral-Educational Intervention to Promote Pediatric Sleep During Hospitalization: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: Hospitalization can contribute to common sleep difficulties in children. Interventions aimed at hospitalized children need to be developed and piloted with rigorous evaluative methods. The primary purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a behavioral-educational intervention aimed at increasing nighttime sleep for hospitalized children. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized children aged 4-10 years and their caregivers. METHODS: A pilot randomized, controlled trial with concealed-group allocation was conducted. Forty-eight hospitalized children (ages 4-10) and their care-givers were randomized to either the Relax to Sleep (RTS) intervention group (n = 24) or the Usual Care (UC) comparison group (n = 24). The RTS intervention was comprised of a one-on-one educational session for the parent that was guided by a standardized booklet containing information on sleep and instructions for training the child in the use of a diaphragmatic breathing exercise. UC participants received no information about sleep or relaxation. Children wore actigraphs for 3 days and nights and completed sleep diaries. Outcome measures included feasibility, acceptability, and sleep outcomes. RESULTS: Parental reports indicated they enjoyed the discussion on sleep, found the information helpful, and their child found diaphragmatic breathing easy to use, and would use it again in the future. Children in the RTS group averaged 50 minutes more nighttime sleep, and had less wake after sleep onset time compared to children in the UC group. CONCLUSION: Sleep is critically important to children's health and well-being and should be given important consideration during hospitalization. Although the results of this pilot trial seem promising, more interventional studies are needed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".