The Treatment of Pediatric Pain in Spain: A Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain is a common experience among children and adolescents, and pain management in this population is a challenge to clinicians. The aims of this study were to increase our understanding of current practices in the management of both acute and chronic pediatric pain in Spain, explore potential barriers to ideal practices, and identify professional needs as perceived by healthcare professionals. A total of 277 healthcare professionals took part, all of whom had wide experience in managing children and adolescents with pain (M [SD] age = 44.85, [10.73]; 75% women). Participants had to respond to a web-based survey with 50 questions related to pain education, organizational characteristics of their pain programs (including the characteristics of the patients treated), and current practices in the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with pain. Almost all the participants (93%) acknowledged important gaps in their training, and only 47% reported that they had received specific education on the management of pediatric pain during their undergraduate and postgraduate studies. A third (31%) were members of multidisciplinary teams, and almost all (99%) understood that protocols to guide the management of pain in young people were necessary. However, only a few of them used a protocol to assess and treat (56% and 48%, respectively) acute and chronic pain (24% and 23%, respectively). The data also showed that a lack of pain education, coordination of professionals, and guidelines was perceived as an important barrier in the care provided to children and adolescents with pain in Spain. The findings of this study can now be used by healthcare professionals in Spain interested in managing pediatric pain, as well as policymakers concerned to improve the education of professionals and the care given to young people with pain.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".