Parents in Neonatal Pain Management—An International Survey of Parent-Delivered Interventions and Parental Pain Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While parent-delivered pain management has been demonstrated to effectively reduce neonatal procedural pain responses, little is known about to what extent it is utilized. Our aim was to explore the utilization of parents in neonatal pain management and investigate whether local guidelines promote parent-delivered interventions. METHODS: A web-based survey was distributed to neonatal units worldwide. RESULTS: The majority of the 303 responding neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) from 44 countries were situated in high-income countries from Europe and Central Asia. Of the responding units, 67% had local guidelines about neonatal pain management, and of these, 40% answered that parental involvement was recommended, 27% answered that the role of parents in pain management was mentioned as optional, and 32% responded that it was not mentioned in the guidelines. According to the free-text responses, parent-delivered interventions of skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, and parental live singing were the most frequently performed in the NICUs. Of the responding units, 65% answered that parents performed some form of pain management regularly or always. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be some practice uptake of parent-delivered pain management to reduce neonatal pain in high-income countries. Additional incorporation of these interventions into NICU pain guidelines is needed, as well as a better understanding of the use of parent-delivered pain management in low- and middle-income countries.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".