Interventions to Improve the Cast Removal Experience for Children and Their Families: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cast removal can be a distressing experience for a child. This scoping review aims to provide a comprehensive review of interventions designed to reduce anxiety and improve the child's and family's experience of pediatric cast removal. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, grey literature sources). INCLUSION CRITERIA: studies published January 1975-October 2019 with a primary focus on pediatric patients undergoing cast removal/cast room procedures. Screening, full text review, data extraction, and quality appraisal were conducted in duplicate. RESULTS: 974 unique articles and 1 video were screened. Nine articles (eight unique studies) with a total of 763 participants were included. Interventions included the following, alone or in combination: noise reduction, electronic device use, preparatory information, music therapy, play therapy, and child life specialist-directed intervention. Heart rate was used as a primary (88%) or secondary (12%) outcome measure across studies. Each study reported some positive effect of the intervention, however effects varied by age, outcome measure, and measurement timing. Studies scored low on outcome measure validity and blinding as assessed by the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Randomized Controlled Trials. CONCLUSION: Various methods have been tested to improve the pediatric cast removal experience. Results are promising, however the variation in observed effectiveness suggests a need for the use of consistent and valid outcome measures. In addition, future research and quality improvement projects should evaluate interventions that are tailored to a child's age and child/family preference.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".