MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998978187 · doi:10.1186/s13063-019-3782-9

A cluster randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the Implementation of Infant Pain Practice Change (ImPaC) Resource to improve pain practices in hospitalized infants: a study protocol

2020· article· en· W2998978187 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mariana Bueno, Bonnie Stevens, Melanie Barwick, Shirine Riahi, Shelly‐Anne Li, Alexa Lanese, Andrew R. Willan, Anne Synnes, Carole A. Estabrooks, Christine T. Chambers, Denise Harrison, Janet Yamada, Jennifer Stinson, Marsha Campbell‐Yeo, Mélanie Noël, Sharyn Gibbins, Sylvie LeMay, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalTrillium Health CentreUniversity of CalgaryChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of OttawaAlberta Children's HospitalIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de MontréalHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of British ColumbiaPublic Health OntarioToronto Metropolitan UniversityCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoSickKids Foundation
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Randomized controlled trialPain managementPhysical therapyCluster (spacecraft)Clinical trialResearch designAlternative medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized infants undergo multiple painful procedures daily. Despite the significant evidence, procedural pain assessment and management continues to be suboptimal. Repetitive and untreated pain at this vital developmental juncture is associated with negative behavioral and neurodevelopmental consequences. To address this knowledge to practice gap, we developed the web-based Implementation of Infant Pain Practice Change (ImPaC) Resource to guide change in healthcare professionals' pain practice behaviors. This protocol describes the evaluation of the intervention effectiveness and implementation of the Resource and how organizational context influences outcomes. METHODS: An effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 1 design, blending a cluster randomized clinical trial and a mixed-methods implementation study will be used. Eighteen Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) across Canada will be randomized to intervention (INT) or standard practice (SP) groups. NICUs in the INT group will receive the Resource for six months; those in the SP group will continue with practice as usual and will be offered the Resource after a six-month waiting period. Data analysts will be blinded to group allocation. To address the intervention effectiveness, the INT and SP groups will be compared on clinical outcomes including the proportion of infants who have procedural pain assessed and managed, and the frequency and nature of painful procedures. Data will be collected at baseline (before randomization) and at completion of the intervention (six months). Implementation outcomes (feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, and reach) will be measured at completion of the intervention. Sustainability will be assessed at six and 12 months following the intervention. Organizational context will be assessed to examine its influence on intervention and implementation outcomes. DISCUSSION: This mixed-methods study aims to determine the effectiveness and the implementation of a multifaceted online strategy for changing healthcare professionals' pain practices for hospitalized infants. Implementation strategies that are easily and effectively implemented are important for sustained change. The results will inform healthcare professionals and decision-makers on how to address the challenges of implementing the Resource within various organizational contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03825822. Registered 31 January 2019.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.416
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.526
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4160.526
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.366 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207