Patient and provider perspectives on pain management during manual vacuum aspiration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) is a painful procedure often conducted without analgesia. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a paracervical block (PCB) as the mode of pain relief during MVA. Few studies have assessed patient perspectives on pain control during MVA. We investigated the perspectives of health workers and patients on MVA under PCB. This study was nested within a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the Chloe SED (syringe extension device) for PCB provision. Eleven providers and 61 patients were enrolled. All providers had MVA experience. They had not provided pain relief on 20% of occasions, and only one had previously administered PCB for MVA. Both patients and providers indicated MVA was painful and deserving of analgesia. Pain was the most common reason for difficulty completing an MVA. Providers noted that PCB made the procedure more tolerable. For patients, efficacy, remaining conscious, and same-day discharge were key considerations when selecting pain relief. Notably, 84% of patients expressed satisfaction with MVA under PCB. PCB is a vital component of the MVA care package. Considering patient and provider perspectives is essential to optimizing a humane and effective procedural experience.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".