Barns upplevelser av pedagogernas deltagande i leken : "Att man ska leka nåt man vill"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective 1) To assess the feasibility of research methods to test a self-management intervention aimed at preventing acute to chronic pain transition in patients with major lower extremity trauma (iPACT-E-Trauma) and 2) to evaluate its potential effects at three and six months postinjury. Design A pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with two parallel groups. Setting A supraregional level 1 trauma center. Methods Fifty-six adult patients were randomized. Participants received the intervention or an educational pamphlet. Several parameters were evaluated to determine the feasibility of the research methods. The potential efficacy of iPACT-E-Trauma was evaluated with measures of pain intensity and pain interference with activities. Results More than 80% of eligible patients agreed to participate, and an attrition rate of ≤18% was found. Less than 40% of screened patients were eligible, and obtaining baseline data took 48 hours postadmission on average. Mean scores of mild pain intensity and pain interference with daily activities (<4/10) on average were obtained in both groups at three and six months postinjury. Between 20% and 30% of participants reported moderate to high mean scores (≥4/10) on these outcomes at the two follow-up time measures. The experimental group perceived greater considerable improvement in pain (60% in the experimental group vs 46% in the control group) at three months postinjury. Low mean scores of pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale score < 30) and anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores ≤ 10) were obtained through the end of the study. Conclusions Some challenges that need to be addressed in a future RCT include the small proportion of screened patients who were eligible and the selection of appropriate tools to measure the development of chronic pain. Studies will need to be conducted with patients presenting more serious injuries and psychological vulnerability or using a stepped screening approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".