The Effect of Caregiver-Facilitated Pain Management Interventions in Hospitalized Patients on Patient, Caregiver, Provider, and Health System Outcomes: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Alternative pain management interventions involving caregivers may be valuable adjuncts to conventional pain management interventions. OBJECTIVES: Use systematic review methodology to examine caregiver-facilitated pain management interventions in a hospital setting and whether they improve patient, caregiver, provider, or health system outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus databases from inception to April 2020. Original research on caregiver-facilitated pain management interventions in hospitalized settings (i.e., any age) were included and categorized into three caregiver engagement strategies: inform (e.g., pain education), activate (e.g., prompt caregiver action), and collaborate (encourage caregiver's interaction with providers). RESULTS: Of 61 included studies, most investigated premature (n = 27 of 61; 44.3%) and full-term neonates (n = 19 of 61; 31.1%). Interventions were classified as activate (n = 46 of 61; 75.4%), inform-activate-collaborate (n = 6 of 61; 9.8%), inform-activate (n = 5 of 61; 8.2%), activate-collaborate (n = 3 of 61; 4.9%), or inform (n = 1 of 61; 1.6%) caregiver engagement strategies. Interventions that included an activate engagement strategy improved pain outcomes in adults (18-64 years) (e.g., self-reported pain, n = 4 of 5; 80%) and neonates (e.g., crying, n = 32 of 41; 73.0%) but not children or older adults (65 years and older). Caregiver outcomes (e.g., pain knowledge) were improved by inform-activate engagement strategies (n = 3 of 3). Interventions did not improve provider (e.g., satisfaction) or health system (e.g., hospital length of stay) outcomes. Most studies were of low (n = 36 of 61; 59.0%) risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Caregiver-facilitated pain management interventions using an activate engagement strategy may be effective in reducing pain of hospitalized neonates. Caregiver-facilitated pain management interventions improved pain outcomes in most adult studies; however, the number of studies of adults is small warranting caution pending further studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".