Empathy in paediatric intensive care nurses part 1: Behavioural and psychological correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine if differences exist between paediatric intensive care nurses and allied health professionals in empathy, secondary trauma, burnout, pain exposure and pain ratings of self and others. Early and late career differences were also examined. BACKGROUND: Nurses are routinely exposed to patient pain expression. This work context may make them vulnerable to adverse outcomes such as desensitization to patient pain or a compromise in personal well-being. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Data were collected from a convenience sample of paediatric intensive care nurses (n = 27) and allied health professionals (n = 24), from September 2014-June 2015, at a Canadian health centre. Both groups completed one demographic and three behavioural scales. Participants underwent fMRI while rating the pain of infant and adult patients in a series of video clips. Data were analyzed using parametric and non-parametric methods. fMRI results are reported in a second paper. RESULTS: Nurses were significantly more likely to be exposed to pain at work than allied health professionals and scored significantly higher on dimensions of empathy, secondary trauma and burnout. Nurses scored their own pain and the pain of infant and adult patients, higher than allied health participants. Less experienced nurses had higher secondary trauma and burnout scores than more experienced nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Paediatric intensive care work demands, such as patient pain exposure, may be associated with nurse's higher report of empathy and pain in self and others, but also with higher levels of secondary trauma and burnout, when compared with allied health professionals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".