Making needle procedures comfortable for autistic children: Caregiver perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Autistic children are at greater risk for having difficulty undergoing needle procedures and poor management of their needle pain and fear. While there are general clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) available for managing pediatric needle pain and fear, it is unclear whether these strategies are appropriate for autistic children and their caregivers. Method The objective of this study was to explore caregiver perspectives on what is needed for needle procedures to be comfortable and CPGs to be appropriate for them and their autistic child. Twenty Canadian caregivers of autistic children were interviewed, including open-ended questions and ratings of how helpful CPG strategies would be for autistic children. Results Using reflexive thematic analysis , four themes were identified: 1) autistic children’s sense of autonomy is important; 2) external factors impact autistic children’s comfort (e.g., environment, familiarity, healthcare providers); 3) caregivers play a key role by preparing themselves and others before needle procedures and 4) it is essential to tailor CPG strategies to children’s needs. Conclusions Findings indicate that a child and family-centered approach is imperative to making needle procedures comfortable for autistic children. Practical recommendations for healthcare providers and caregivers are provided.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".