MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134647126 · doi:10.1097/ajp.0000000000000925

Implementation and Evaluation of the Premature Infant Pain Profile-revised (PIPP-R) e-Learning Module for Assessing Pain in Infants

2021· article· en· W3134647126 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mariana Bueno, Bonnie Stevens, Megha Rao, Shirine Riahi, Marsha Campbell‐Yeo, Leah Carrier, Britney Benoit

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Pain · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier UniversityIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie UniversitySickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUsabilityDemographicsSession (web analytics)Nursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The Premature Infant Pain Profile-revised (PIPP-R) is a well-established measure for infant pain assessment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation and clinical utility of the PIPP-R electronic learning (e-Learning) module to promote standardized health care training for nurses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive mixed-methods study was conducted in 2 tertiary Neonatal Intensive Care Units in Canada. Nurses were recruited and asked to complete the PIPP-R e-Learning Module and evaluate it. A 26-item questionnaire was used to describe nurse demographics and clinical experience and to evaluate implementation success (ie, acceptability, feasibility, usability) and clinical utility. RESULTS: In all, 98 nurses from 2 settings in Central and Eastern Canada participated; most were registered nurses highly experienced in neonatal nursing care. The majority had received previous training on the PIPP-R (61.2%) and routinely used it in practice (67.4%). They considered the e-Learning module as acceptable and feasible as it was easy to access (94.9%) and to navigate (94.8%). Content was considered clear (98.9%) and met users' learning needs (99.0%). Nurses agreed that completing the module improved their understanding of neonatal pain (96.0%) and was clinically useful in improving their ability to assess pain in neonates (97.9%). The module was accessed primarily from work settings (77.8%) using desktop computers (49.0%) or tablets (28.0%) and was usually completed in a single session (75.7%). DISCUSSION: Nurses' evaluation of the PIPP-R e-Learning module was overwhelmingly positive. The module was perceived as easy to implement, clinically useful, and was considered as a promising online educational tool. Further testing in clinical practice is needed to build on the results of this study and support the importance of dissemination of this module for standardized training purposes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of PainSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207