MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121006499 · doi:10.1002/pne2.12045

How nurses use reassurance to support the management of acute and chronic pain in children and young people: An exploratory, interpretative qualitative study

2021· article· en· W3121006499 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bernie Carter, Jane Harris, Abbie Jordan

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatric and Neonatal Pain · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisWorryContext (archaeology)DistressFocus groupQualitative researchPsychologyExploratory researchNursingMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reassurance in the context of pediatric pain is regarded to promote distress. Typically, spoken reassurance is reported as short, generic statements ("it's ok," "don't worry"); little research has considered wider reassuring behaviors and actions undertaken by nurses. Most studies focus on unidirectional, dyadic relationships between reassurance and pain (parent-to-child, professional-to-child) failing to capture the inherent complexities. Adopting an exploratory, interpretative, and qualitative approach, this paper reports on findings from the qualitative interview component of a mixed-methods study, concerning how nurses actively use reassurance when talking to children and their parents about pain. Eighteen nurses with experience of managing children's pain were recruited on completion of an international online survey (distributed by pain and children's nursing networks and via newsletter, email, and social media). All 18 nurses completed a semi-structured interview concerning their experiences of managing children's pain working in the UK (n = 14), Canada (n = 3), and Australia (n = 1) in primary, secondary, and tertiary settings with nursing experience ranging from pre-qualification to >20 years. Thematic analysis generated three themes which reflect the main ways in which nurses focus their reassurance within encounters with children and their parent(s): (a) on child and parent(s), (b) on the child, and (c) on the parent. Nurses generated reassurance using language, gesture, relationship building, individualizing approaches, education, and preparation. The study highlights the diversity of reassurance provided by nurses in relation to children's pain. Our study finds that when nurses reassure children about pain, they focus their reassurance in three distinct directions (child, parents, and children and parents in partnership); this has not been specifically acknowledged by previous research. We highlight the wide range of implicit and explicit reassurance actions undertaken by nurses and propose that reassurance that extends beyond limited vocalizations is part of a complex package of care that can support children's current and future pain experiences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatric and Neonatal PainSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207