MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nurses' knowledge and practices regarding pain management in newborns

2017· article· en· W2604576257 on OpenAlexaff
Taine Costa, Lisabelle Mariano Rossato, Mariana Bueno, Izabela Linha Secco, Natália Pinheiro Braga Sposito, Denise Harrison, Júnia Selma de Freitas

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations83
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista da Escola de Enfermagem da USPSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207