Bringing It All Together: A Review of the Challenges in Measuring Children’s Satisfaction as a Key Component of Acute Pain Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2008, the Pediatric Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (PedIMMPACT) published a consensus statement that recognized the dearth of research surrounding the topic of children's satisfaction with acute pain management. This review of published literature will summarize what is known about the topic of children's satisfaction with pain management, identify current gaps in the knowledge, and provide direction for future research in this critical area. Including children in the decision-making process as soon as they are developmentally able is a concept that is the fundamental basis for seeking assent and more active roles within healthcare decisions for children. It is the responsibility of adults to provide them with increasing opportunities for self-evaluation and more independent management of their healthcare, encouraging the development of children into adults. As clinicians and researchers, it is our prerogative to support the maturation of children by building effective methods to communicate their satisfaction with acute pain treatment and healthcare. Children's satisfaction with acute pain management is not well studied and further research is needed for the development of inclusive, developmentally appropriate measures of satisfaction for our pediatric patients.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".