A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of an Intervention to Promote Psychological Well-Being in Critically Ill Children: Soothing Through Touch, Reading, and Music*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of a PICU Soothing intervention using touch, reading, and music. DESIGN: Nonblinded, pilot randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The PICU and medical-surgical wards of one Canadian pediatric hospital. PATIENTS: Twenty PICU patients age 2-14 years old and their parents, randomized to an intervention group (n = 10) or control group (n = 10). INTERVENTION: PICU Soothing consisted of: 1) parental comforting (touch and reading), followed by 2) a quiet period with music via soft headbands, administered once daily throughout hospitalization. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Acceptability and feasibility of the intervention and methods were assessed via participation rates, observation, measurement completion rates, semistructured interviews, and telephone calls. Psychological well-being was assessed using measures of distress, sleep, and child and parent anxiety in the PICU, on the wards and 3 months post discharge. Forty-four percent of parents agreed to participate. Seventy percent and 100% of intervention group parents responded positively to comforting and music, respectively. Most intervention group parents (70%) and all nurses felt children responded positively. All nurses found the intervention acceptable and feasible. Measurement completion rates ranged from 70% to 100%. Pilot data suggested lower intervention group child and parent anxiety after transfer to hospital wards. CONCLUSIONS: PICU Soothing is acceptable and feasible to conduct. Results support the implementation of a full-scale randomized controlled trial to evaluate intervention effectiveness.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".