MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2782129278 · doi:10.1093/pch/21.supp5.e70

Family Perceptions and Provision of Analgesia for Acutely Painful Conditions in Children: A Multi-Centred Prospective Survey

2016· article· en· W2782129278 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sydney Todorovich, Caroline Poonai, Bonnie Wright, Siti Nazilah Mat Ali, Chetan Bhatt, Kyle Canton, Ashutosh Mishra, Kathy N. Speechley, Antonia Stang, Gilman Thompson, Naveen Poonai

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologyMedicineSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyAnesthesiaNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: More than two-thirds of children who present to the emergency department (ED) complain of pain. It is well known that children’s pain is poorly managed in the ED compared to their adult counterparts. With respect to analgesic administration in the ED, discrepancies exist between physician self-report and institutional audit. Patient refusal of analgesia is a likely explanation. There is good evidence that misconceptions and fears about analgesia in children are common among caregivers and may contribute to withholding pain medication. To date, no study has surveyed caregivers presenting the the ED to assess frequency of analgesic administration and reasons for withholding analgesia. We hypothesize that there will be a significant proportion of care-givers and patients that refuse pain medication in the ED. We also hypothesize that there will be a wide range of reasons for refusal. The insight we gain from this study will help nurses, clinical educators, and physicians provide the appropriate information to parents in an effort to target misconceptions and allay fears. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to characterize the degree of care-giver and patient provision of analgesia prior to arrival, refusal of analgesia in the ED, and reasons behind their decision-making process. We hope to identify specific misconceptions, attitudes, or beliefs that impair the optimal provision of analgesia to children in the ED. DESIGN/METHODS: A novel survey was designed by a focus group using an iterative approach and implemented over a 16-week period across two Canadian tertiary care paediatric EDs. We included a consecutive sample of caregivers of children aged 4-17 years with an acutely painful condition (headache, abdominal pain, injury, otitis, pharyngitis). Caregivers were asked to answer questions covering five domains: (i) demographics, (ii) analgesia prior to arrival (iii) analgesia offered in the ED and reasons for refusal, (iv) perceptions of analgesia, and (v) caregiver satisfaction at discharge. Children were asked to rate their pain on arrival and at discharge. The primary outcome was the frequency of caregiver provision of analgesia prior to arrival and the proportion of caregivers who accept the offer of analgesia offered in the ED. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-four caregivers completed the survey. The majority were female (269/339, 79%), aged 36 years or older (256/340, 75%) with a post-secondary education (237/336, 71%). Most (309/339, 91%) reported being able to “tell when their child was in pain”. All respondents rated their child’s maximal pain related to the presenting condition as at least a 6/10. With regards to the primary outcome, 229/338 (68%) of caregivers reported that they did not treat their child’s pain prior to arrival in the ED. Of those who did treat their child’s pain, ibuprofen was the most commonly used analgesic (77/112, 69%). The most common reasons for withholding analgesia was a lack of time (80/210, 38%), fear of masking seriousness of child’s condition (49/210, 23%), fear of masking signs and symptoms (48/210, 23%), and a lack of analgesia at home (47/210, 22%). Analgesia was offered to 186/344 (45%) of children in the ED and the majority of caregivers 157/186 (84%) accepted the offer. The most common reason for not accepting analgesia in the ED was child refusal (15/20, 75%). Most, 231/338 (68%) of caregivers felt that their child’s pain was managed well in the ED. CONCLUSION: This survey of caregiver perceptions surrounding analgesia for children with acutely painful conditions presenting to the pae-diatric ED suggests that most do not treat their child’s pain prior to arrival, despite high levels of pain. Misconceptions surrounding analgesia prior to arrival are common. Despite this, most caregivers accepted analgesia in the ED. Our results suggest that educational strategies should be directed at caregiver awareness of the impact of pain on children and the need for prompt analgesic therapy, even when an ED visit is planned.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicPediatric Pain Management Techniques→French-language works237,207→