Parenting pain away: Quasi‐experimental study of an eHealth learning platform to evaluate acceptability, feasibility, and utilisation of parent‐led pain management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the impact of an eHealth educational resource about infant procedural pain management, given during the prenatal period, on feasibility, acceptability, knowledge, self-efficacy, and involvement. BACKGROUND: Routine health care requires newborns to have painful procedures (e.g., intramuscular injection). The impacts of untreated pain in neonates are widely recognised but adoption of effective procedural pain management strategies in clinical practice varies. There is clear evidence supporting the effectiveness of parent-led pain management during procedures (e.g., skin-to-skin care) and reputable resources to raise awareness among parents are warranted. Our team co-created Parenting Pain Away, a website to equip parents with evidence to assist with managing the pain of procedures and empower them to be involved. METHODS: A quasi-experimental evaluation using a pre/post intervention design with low-risk expectant parents. RESULTS: Of the 41 participants, before intervention exposure participants were familiar or had used skin-to-skin care (n = 33), breastfeeding (n = 30) and sucrose (n = 13) as pain management. Most participants (n = 38) desired more information on how to be involved. Providing access to Parenting Pain Away during pregnancy was supported and participants ranked the website above average using the System Usability Scale. Parenting Pain Away did not have a statistically significant influence on outcomes. Participants reported variation in clinical support with parent-led pain management. CONCLUSION: A multifaceted approach is recommended to maintain infant procedural pain management. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: Equipping parents with knowledge related to infant pain management using an eHealth approach satisfied their information desires. The study findings are important considerations for perinatal care providers, policy makers, and families to finally achieve adequate procedural pain management. REPORTING METHOD: This study used the STROBE checklist, adhering to EQUATOR guidelines. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A stakeholder group (expectant parents, parents, perinatal researchers, clinicians, and administrators) was created to inform the study design and intervention.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".