The Effect of Finger Puppets on Postoperative Pain in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".