Pain Intensity among Women with Post-Caesarean Section: A Descriptive Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The frequency of Caesarean section increased from 5% to 15% across the world. According to statistics, it is highest in the U.S. or around 24%, and then in Canada about 20%, in Denmark about 13%, 10% in England, and it is lowest in Japan 7%. Post-cesarean section women experience pain due to operative trauma. Individual variability of postoperative pain is influenced by multiple factors, including sensitivity to pain, psychological factors, age, and genetics. Cesarean delivery patients have even more compelling reasons to achieve optimal postoperative pain relief than other surgical patients, but they also present unique challenges. Post cesarean delivery patients are at a higher risk for thromboembolic events, which may also be precipitated by immobility from inadequate pain control or excessive sedation from opioids. Objectives: This research aimed to describe pain intensity among women with post-cesarean Section. Methods: This research conducted at an obstetric ward in Hasan Sadikin Hospital, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia with 60 women with postcesarean section. Instrument used Visual Rating Scale (VAS) for pain measurement. A descriptive Study with Mean±SD for univariate analysis Result: Pain intensity among women with post-caesarian section were mild pain level with mean of pain level was 2.8. Women with mild pain level as much as 81,6%. Conclusions: As a nurse, can be considered as a nonpharmacological intervention to reduce the pain of cesarean section effectively and to decrease the number of medications and their side effects.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it