MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904573566 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023366

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of humanoid robot-based distraction for venipuncture pain in children

2018· article· en· W2904573566 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Samina Ali, Mithra Sivakumar, Tanya Beran, Shannon D. Scott, Ben Vandermeer, Sarah Curtis, Hsing Jou, Lisa Hartling

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersChildren's Hospital FoundationUniversity of AlbertaStollery Children’s Hospital FoundationWomen and Children's Health Research InstituteChildren's Health Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineDistractionDistressObservational studyInformed consentRandomized controlled trialAnxietyPhysical therapyProtocol (science)Family medicineAlternative medicineClinical psychologyPsychiatrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Intravenous insertion (IVI) is a very common procedure in the emergency department (ED). IVI is often painful and stressful for both children and their families. Currently, distraction therapy is not used as a standard of care for IVI in North America. We propose that interaction with a humanoid robot may effectively distract children during IVI thereby reducing their pain and distress. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This randomised controlled superiority trial will be conducted in a Canadian paediatric ED. We plan to recruit 80 patients. Children will be eligible if they (1) are 6 to 11 years of age, (2) need an IVI, (3) are fully conscious and alert, (4) have sufficient knowledge of the English language to understand and complete the study assessments and (5) are accompanied by a legal guardian. Our primary objective is to compare patient-reported pain and distress with the use of distraction (via a humanoid robot) versus standard care in children. The primary outcomes will be (1) self-reported pain, as measured by the Faces Pain Scale-Revised and (2) observed distress, as measured by the Observational Scale of Behavioural Distress-Revised. Secondary outcomes will include (1) measuring parental anxiety, (2) examining the association between parental anxiety and child outcomes and (3) children's degree of engagement with the humanoid robot via the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory tool. First enrolment occurred in April 2017 and is ongoing. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Health Research Ethics Board (University of Alberta). Informed consent to participate will be obtained from all participants' parents/guardian, in conjunction with assent from the participant themselves. This study data will be submitted for publication regardless of results. Purchase of the robot was facilitated through a Stollery Children's Hospital Foundation donation. Recruitment costs are supported by the Women and Children's Health Research Institute. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02997631; Pre-results.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0100.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1600.021

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.383 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207