MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nurses' knowledge and practices regarding pain management in newborns

2017· article· en· W2604576257 on OpenAlex

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

VenueRevista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPain managementNeonatal nursingMEDLINEMedicineNursingPsychologyPsychiatryPhysical therapyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To analyze nurses' knowledge and practices regarding pain management of newborns admitted to Neonatal Intensive Care Units. METHOD: A descriptive and cross-sectional study. Data were collected from 51 nurses based on an adapted questionnaire aimed at evaluating knowledge and practices regarding the management of neonatal pain in six hospitals in Curitiba and its Metropolitan Region. RESULTS: For most nurses (86.0%), neonates feel pain. A total of 34.7% of the nurses reported never using pain assessment scales. Pain management was recorded by 84.3% of the nurses. Administered pharmacological measures were Paracetamol and Fentanyl (47.1%) and Morphine (17.6%); while non-pharmacological measures adopted were sweetened solution (68.6%), non-nutritive sucking (58.8%) and positioning (56.9%). CONCLUSION: Nurses considered neonatal pain a real event; however, they do not perform pain assessment or treatment of newborns in a systematized way.It is necessary to implement knowledge translation strategiesin order to improve pain management in newborns. OBJETIVO: Verificar o conhecimento e as práticasdos enfermeiros sobreo manejo da dor de recém-nascidos admitidos em Unidades de Tratamento Intensivo Neonatal. MÉTODO: Estudo descritivo e transversal. Os dados foram coletados com 51 enfermeiros, a partir de um questionário adaptado que visa avaliar o conhecimento e as práticas sobre o manejo da dor neonatal, em seis hospitais de Curitiba e Região Metropolitana. RESULTADOS: Para a maioria dos enfermeiros(86,0%), os neonatos sentem dor. Um total de 34,7% afirmaramnunca utilizar escalas de avaliaçãoda dor. O registro do manejo da dor foi realizado por 84,3% dos enfermeiros. As medidas farmacológicas realizadas foram Paracetamol e Fentanil (47,1%) e Morfina (17,6%);as não farmacológicas adotadas foram solução adocicada (68,6%), sucção não nutritiva (58,8%) e posicionamento (56,9%). CONCLUSÃO: Os enfermeiros consideraram a dor neonatal como um evento real, porém não realizavam avaliação ou tratamento da dor no recém-nascido de modosistematizado. É necessário implementarestratégias de tradução do conhecimento paraaprimorar o manejo da dor de recém-nascidos.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.341 · 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