CONCEPTUALIZING CHRONIC PAIN IN HOSPITALIZED INFANTS: HEALTH PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to anecdotal evidence from health professionals and parents, there are significant numbers of medically comprised infants that are potentially experiencing chronic pain. However, minimal research conceptualizing the phenomenon of chronic pain can be found in the literature. The purpose of this study was to conduct an in-depth qualitative analysis of definitional and assessment parameters for infant chronic pain with experienced health care professionals. Methods Forty-five health care professionals considered to be expert clinicians (nurses, physicians, respiratory therapists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, dieticians, pharmacists) with a median of 17 years of clinical experience were recruited from three tertiary level, university-affiliated Neonatal Intensive Care Units and one Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. Using a qualitative descriptive methodology, individual and focus group interviews were conducted with eligible health professionals. All data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using qualitative and quantitative content analyses methods. Results There was clear acknowledgement that infants had the capacity to experience chronic pain. Furthermore, although there were inconsistencies as to the exact definition of chronic pain, health care professionals were able to offer preliminary definitional parameters of chronic pain and provide examples of infant chronic pain on their hospital units. They suggested possible indicators for chronic pain that focused on behaviours and physical/physiological responses sustained over time which differ from indicators traditionally used to measure acute pain. Relevance Articulating preliminary definitional parameters of infant chronic pain and positing potential indicators is the first step to improving pain assessment and management in this vulnerable population.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".