Family members’ perceptions of pain behaviors and pain management of adult patients unable to self-report in the intensive care unit: A qualitative descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines suggest that family members be consulted in the pain assessment process of patients unable to self-report. However, little is known regarding family members' perceptions of their loved one's pain behaviors and pain management. AIMS: This qualitative descriptive study aimed to describe family members' perceptions of pain behaviors and pain management in critically ill hospitalized patients admitted to an intensive care unit and unable to self-report. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive design was used. This study was conducted in a medical-surgical intensive care unit in Canada. Family members of nonverbal adult patients participated in a semistructured interview regarding their perceptions of pain behaviors and pain management in the intensive care unit. RESULTS: Ten family members with a nonverbal loved one admitted to the intensive care unit participated. Family members agreed on the presence of pain in the intensive care unit and reported being proactive and applying nonpharmacological interventions to help palliate pain of their loved one. Although family members identified behavioral indicators such as grimace, limb movement, and verbal complaints to assess pain in their loved one, the majority were unsure of their ability to detect pain. CONCLUSIONS: Family members have intimate knowledge of their loved one and could be invited to share their perceptions of their loved one's pain when they feel confident to do so.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".