Implementation of a knowledge translation and exchange intervention for pain management in neonates
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
Objective To describe the implementation process of a multifaceted knowledge translation and exchange intervention to improve pain management practices, and to evaluate the adoption of this intervention by health professionals during painful procedures in neonates. Methods A quasi-experimental before-and-after study developed in a neonatal unit. The Evidence-Based Practice for Improving Quality intervention guided by the conceptual framework The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services was implemented in two stages (preparation and implementation). Its adoption was measured by clinical indicators related to pain management presented through descriptive statistics. Results After discussion on existing practices in the unit that needed to be changed, synthesis of current scientific evidence and local context data, members of the unit’s Research and Practice Council developed and implemented coherent and achievable goals for the change of practice in pain management, selected knowledge translation and exchange strategies, determined the target audience and indicators, and implemented the interventions. There was a 32.8% reduction in the number of painful procedures performed, an increase of 26.6-50.7% in the use of pain assessment scales and of 25.1% in the administration of oral glucose. Conclusion The multifaceted Evidence-Based Practice for Improving Quality intervention is complex, and has processes that demand knowledge and skills, commitment from the various actors involved, availability of time and financial investment. The analyzed indicators showed that the intervention resulted in positive changes in clinical practice in the management of pain in neonates.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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