Study protocol for a multi‐centre parallel two‐group randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and impact of a pain assessment and management program for respite workers supporting children with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Pain is common and complex for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD). Secondary caregivers such as respite workers are lacking important pain-related information which can impact care. Here, we outline a randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocol testing the effectiveness of a pain training for respite workers supporting children with I/DD. Methods/design: Organizations enrolled in the RCT were randomly assigned to receive a 3-3.5 hours pain or family-centered care training. Data were collected immediately before, after, and 4-6 weeks following completion of the training. Outcomes are as follows: pain knowledge (primary), pain assessment and management perceptions (secondary), training evaluations (secondary), and use of pain assessment and management skills (tertiary). Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies are being used including questionnaires, rating scales, a standardized vignette, and focus groups. Conclusions: Results from this trial will be used to further understand the impact of the pain training and inform next steps related to implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03421795.
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 | 0.025 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".