Avaliação da dor, estresse e coping em puérperas no pós operatório de cesárea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The study’s purpose has ben to assess pain, perceived stress and coping in puerperal women during their cesarean postoperative periods. Methods: It is a cross-sectional study with a quantitative approach, which was carried out with 65 postpartum women admitted to a general hospital. The puerperal women during their cesarean postoperative period showing complaints and/or signs of pain in the last 24 hours were included. Data collection took place from April to July 2014 by using a Socio-demographic/Clinical Characterization Form, the McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Perceived Stress Scale, and an Inventory of Coping Strategies. Considering data analysis, Statistical analysis was performed. The project was approved by the Ethics and Research Committee from the Universidade Regional do Nororeste do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul (UNIJUI), CAAE No. 26726014.0.0000.5350. Results: 46.4% reported severe pain; 64.6% “nauseous” pain. Among the puerperal women, 83.1% were classified as medium stress, and Positive Reassessment was the most used coping factor. Conclusion: Through the surgical procedure the biopsychosocial health of the puerperal women can be compromised due to the presence of pain. Nevertheless, the use of coping strategies focused on the problem might favor the confrontation of the stressors in a positive way.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.023 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".