Identifying Risk Factors, Patient-Reported Experience and Outcome Measures, and Data Capture Tools for an Individualized Pain Prediction Tool in Pediatrics: Focus Group Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The perioperative period is a data-rich environment with potential for innovation through digital health tools and predictive analytics to optimize patients' health with targeted prehabilitation. Although some risk factors for postoperative pain following pediatric surgery are already known, the systematic use of preoperative information to guide personalized interventions is not yet widespread in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: Our long-term goal is to reduce the incidence of persistent postsurgical pain (PPSP) and long-term opioid use in children by developing personalized pain risk prediction models that can guide clinicians and families to identify targeted prehabilitation strategies. To develop such a system, our first objective was to identify risk factors, outcomes, and relevant experience measures, as well as data collection tools, for a future data collection and risk modeling study. METHODS: This study used a patient-oriented research methodology, leveraging parental/caregiver and clinician expertise. We conducted virtual focus groups with participants recruited at a tertiary pediatric hospital; each session lasted approximately 1 hour and was composed of clinicians or family members (people with lived surgical experience and parents of children who had recently undergone a procedure requiring general anesthesia) or both. Data were analyzed thematically to identify potential risk factors for pain, as well as relevant patient-reported experience and outcome measures (PREMs and PROMs, respectively) that can be used to evaluate the progress of postoperative recovery at home. This guidance was combined with a targeted literature review to select tools to collect risk factor and outcome information for implementation in a future study. RESULTS: In total, 22 participants (n=12, 55%, clinicians and n=10, 45%, family members) attended 10 focus group sessions; participants included 12 (55%) of 22 persons identifying as female, and 12 (55%) were under 50 years of age. Thematic analysis identified 5 key domains: (1) demographic risk factors, including both child and family characteristics; (2) psychosocial risk factors, including anxiety, depression, and medical phobias; (3) clinical risk factors, including length of hospital stay, procedure type, medications, and pre-existing conditions; (4) PREMs, including patient and family satisfaction with care; and (5) PROMs, including nausea and vomiting, functional recovery, and return to normal activities of daily living. Participants further suggested desirable functional requirements, including use of standardized and validated tools, and longitudinal data collection, as well as delivery modes, including electronic, parent proxy, and self-reporting, that can be used to capture these metrics, both in the hospital and following discharge. Established PREM/PROM questionnaires, pain-catastrophizing scales (PCSs), and substance use questionnaires for adolescents were subsequently selected for our proposed data collection platform. CONCLUSIONS: This study established 5 key data domains for identifying pain risk factors and evaluating postoperative recovery at home, as well as the functional requirements and delivery modes of selected tools with which to capture these metrics both in the hospital and after discharge. These tools have been implemented to generate data for the development of personalized pain risk prediction models.
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 | 0.030 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".