Family Perceptions and Provision of Analgesia for Acutely Painful Conditions in Children: A Multi-Centred Prospective Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".