MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Effect of Finger Puppets on Postoperative Pain in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2021· article· en· W3138889211 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aylin Kurt, Müge Seval

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Experimental Health Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyAnalgesicRandomized controlled trialPain scorePatient satisfactionPain controlVisual analogue scaleNursingAnesthesiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This study was conducted to determine the effect of finger puppet plays on the postoperative pain relief in children. Methods: This study was conducted with 90 children who were aged between 1-5 years and who underwent surgery in 2016 in Turkey. The children were randomly divided into three groups. The control group (n=30) was given routine treatment (analgesic treatment), intervention group 1 (n=30) was played finger puppet by nurse, and intervention group 2 (n=30) was played finger puppet by parents. Data collection instruments were “Child and Parent Assessment Form”, “Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale” and “PedsQL Health Care Parent Satisfaction Scale”. After the intervention, the pain of children was evaluated by “Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale” and the satisfaction of the parents was evaluated by “PedsQL Health Care Parent Satisfaction Scale”. Results: Mean score of the pain scale in the control group was found higher than the intervention groups 1 and 2 (p<0.001). Mean score of satisfaction in control group was found lower than intervention group 1 and 2 (p<0.001). Conclusion: This study highlights that finger puppet plays can be used to decrease postoperative pain by the nurses as an independent role.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.397 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Experimental Health SciencesSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207