Screening and assessment of chronic pain among children with cerebral palsy: a process evaluation of a pain toolbox
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Though high numbers of children with cerebral palsy experience chronic pain, it remains under-recognized. This paper describes an evaluation of implementation supports and adoption of the Chronic Pain Assessment Toolbox for Children with Disabilities (the Toolbox) to enhance pain screening and assessment practices within a pediatric rehabilitation and complex continuing care hospital.Methods: A multicomponent knowledge translation strategy facilitated Toolbox adoption, inclusive of a clinical practice guideline, cerebral palsy practice points and assessment tools. Across the hospital, seven ambulatory care clinics with cerebral palsy caseloads participated in a staggered roll-out (Group 1: exclusive CP caseloads, March–December; Group 2: mixed diagnostic caseloads, August–December). Evaluation measures included client electronic medical record audit, document review and healthcare provider survey and interviews.Results: A significant change in documentation of pain screening and assessment practice from pre-Toolbox (<2%) to post-Toolbox adoption (53%) was found. Uptake in Group 2 clinics lagged behind Group 1. Opportunities to use the Toolbox consistently (based on diagnostic caseload) and frequently (based on client appointments) were noted among contextual factors identified. Overall, the Toolbox was positively received and clinically useful.Conclusion: Findings affirm that the Toolbox, in conjunction with the application of integrated knowledge translation principles and an established knowledge translation framework, has potential to be a useful resource to enrich and standardize chronic pain screening and assessment practices among children with cerebral palsy.Implications for RehabilitationIt is important to engage healthcare providers in the conceptualization, development, implementation and evaluation of a knowledge-to-action best practice product.The Chronic Pain Toolbox for Children with Disabilities provides rehabilitation staff with guidance on pain screening and assessment best practice and offers a range of validated tools that can be incorporated in ambulatory clinic settings to meet varied client needs.Considering unique clinical contexts (i.e., opportunities for use, provider engagement, staffing absences/turnover) is required to optimize and sustain chronic pain screening and assessment practices in rehabilitation outpatient settings.
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 | 0.043 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".