Soothing and Distress Behaviors of Infants, Parents, and Clinicians During Childhood Vaccinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to describe the behaviors of infants who were born preterm, their parents, and clinicians during 2-, 6-, 12-, and 18-month vaccinations. METHODS: Vaccination sessions were video recorded for 3-5 minutes. The proportion of 5-second intervals in which distress and soothing behavior by infants, parents, and clinicians was coded using the Measure of Adult and Infant Soothing and Distress. Coding consisted of three phases: baseline/anticipatory (60 seconds prior to first needle), procedure (first needle to removal of final needle), and recovery (up to 180 seconds after removal of final needle). RESULTS: A total of 64 infants were included. Distress behavior by infants during the baseline phase ranged from 13% (12-month vaccinations) to 29% (2-month). There was limited anticipatory soothing behavior from parents (10% [12-month] to 50% [2-month]) and clinicians (6% [12-month] to 17% [2-month]). Distress behavior in infants during the procedure ranged from 43% (18-month) to 96% (2-month). There was limited soothing behavior during the procedure from parents (10% [12-month] to 81% [12-month]) and clinicians (13% [12-month] to 71% [2-month]). Few infants received additional pain-reducing interventions, including skin-to-skin contact, 24% oral sucrose, and topical anesthetic. DISCUSSION: Despite infant distress, there was limited anticipatory behavior from parents and clinicians. Two-month-old infants displayed the most distress across all time points yet received the least amount of treatment and proximal parent and clinician behavior. Additional implementation efforts are required to increase awareness and practice uptake among parents and clinicians to ensure infants receive equitable and effective pain management.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".