A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating a Pain Assessment and Management Program for Respite Workers Supporting Children With Disabilities Part One: Pain-Related Knowledge and Perceptions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This parallel group randomized controlled trial tested effectiveness of the Let's Talk About Pain training on respite workers' (RW) pain-related knowledge and feasibility-confidence-skill ratings using between-group and within-group analyses. Fourteen children's respite organizations were randomized to pain or control training. Participants (nintervention = 66; ncontrol = 92) underwent a 3-3.5 hour training and completed measures at pre-, post-, and 4-6 week follow-up. Intention-to-treat (nintervention = 65; ncontrol = 92) and per-protocol (nintervention = 26-38; ncontrol = 40-57) analyses were conducted. Pain training participants demonstrated significantly higher pain knowledge and feasibility-confidence-skill ratings post-follow-up versus control group and significant increases in knowledge from pre-post. Significant gains were maintained from post-follow-up. Results represent a promising step towards enhancing pain-related care for children with IDD.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it