MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2947396302 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxz066.074

75 Efficacy of MEDi® preparation to manage children’s pain and fear during IV inductions: a randomized-controlled trial

2019· article· en· W2947396302 on OpenAlexaff
Rachelle Lee-Krueger, Jacqueline Reynolds Pearson, Adam Spencer, Mélanie Noël, Lisa Bell-Graham, Tanya Beran

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicineLibrary sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intravenous (IV) induction can be a distressing experience for a considerable number of children receiving surgery. When inhalation anesthesia is not well-tolerated, particularly for those at risk of malignant hyperthermia or side effects to volatile gases, the preferred method is to perform IV induction. However, given the limited effectiveness of existing pharmacotherapies and psychological interventions to reduce needle pain, securing IV access while the patients are awake in the operating room (OR) can be challenging for those who are fearful of needle procedures. A prospective study explored the effectiveness of MEDi®, a humanoid robot programmed to deliver cognitive-behavioral strategies and teach deep breathing techniques that can be used during IV procedures. In this randomized, controlled, two-armed trial, children were randomly assigned to obtain induction according to standard protocol, or with preparation from MEDi® prior to induction. Surgical patients (n = 137) ages 4–12 years were recruited from a major Western pediatric hospital. Anticipated and experienced ratings of needle pain and distress were collected from children, parents, anesthesiologists, and researchers. Follow-up interviews were conducted to assess the recall of pain memories and parental self-efficacy. Results indicate that pain and fear scores during IV placement were not significantly different between groups. After interacting with MEDi®, results also show an increased use of preparation strategies in the OR. Finally, children who received MEDi® preparation were more likely to complete the IV induction procedure (and thus not require the inhalation anesthesia), compared to standard care (Fisher’s Exact reported, p = 0.04, φc = 0.22). This study was the first to examine how a robot can assist patients in learning strategies to cope with IV induction and suggests that it may help them tolerate IV procedures.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicPediatric Pain Management Techniques→French-language works237,207→