Parental Perceptions Regarding Prescription Opioid Use for Pain Control in Children Following Orthopedic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: With increasing concerns regarding the morbidity and mortality associated with opioid abuse disorders, there may be parental reluctance regarding the perioperative administration of opioids for postoperative pain management. Lack of effective postoperative analgesia may impact the postoperative course of surgical patients and be associated with adverse physiologic effects including prolonged recovery. The current study seeks to provide insight into parental perceptions of prescription opioid use in children undergoing orthopedic surgery. Methods: The study was conducted through use of a preoperative survey, which was completed by the parents or guardians of 125 patients during the months of May through August 2023. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools. Results: Although a majority (66.4%) believed that prescription opioids were dangerous, a similar majority (57.4%) responded that opioid use for their child’s postoperative pain management was safe. The top two concerns were adverse side effects and their child becoming addicted. Ninety percent believed they were somewhat informed or very informed on opioids; however, 41.1% reported never having a conversation with their physician about opioid use. The two strongest influences that impacted parental perceptions and knowledge regarding opioids were the experiences of close friends or family members and the media. Conclusions: When opioids are prescribed for postoperative pain, we suggest parental education by physicians to provide instructions regarding appropriate opioid use, the true risk of adverse effects, methods for disposal of unused medication, and to allay their fears of the use of opioids to treat acute pain. Int J Clin Pediatr. 2023;12(1):3-10 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/ijcp508
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".