The satisfaction level of patients with trauma on pain management [Travma geçiren hastalarin aǧri yönetimine ilişkin memnuniyet düzeyi]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This is a descriptive study to determine patient satisfaction of pain relief exercises in trauma patients. Material and Methods: The study group consisted of patients who presented with trauma to the emergency units of two hospitals in İstanbul. A total of 418 patients aged 18-65 years were included. A 13-item individual properties form, shortened wound assessment with visual analog scale and forth section of McGill-Melzack pain question form were used to collect data. Data were expressed as percentage, median, and standart deviation, and One-way Anova Test, Student's t Test, and Pearson Corelation Analysis methods were used for statistical analyses. Results: Of the patients, 25.4% (n= 106) was in the 28-37 years age range, 69.9% (n= 292) was male, 70.8% (n= 296) was graduate of elementary school, 44.5% (n= 186) was self-employed, 94.5% (n= 395) had blunt trauma and 75.4% (n= 315) had limb trauma. All (n= 418) patients were administered nonsteroid antiinflammatory drugs; 95.5% (n= 416) by intramuscular injection; in 62.9% (n= 293) the paint did not relieve. Conclusion: The pain perceived after trauma until interview time was defined as "very severe" by 51.7% (n= 216) of the patients. The pain relief exercises were considered not satisfactory by 63.4% (n= 265) of the cases; the degree of satisfaction for patient care in the emergency unit was medium (4.35 ± 2.78; 5.18 ± 2.07). As a result, pain severity increased parallel to trauma severity and the degree of satisfaction for pain relief exercises and emergency care for patients who had very severe pain severity was low. The data obtained suggest that pain is still not managed as a serious problem in the emergency trauma units and that most trauma patients are not satisfied with the emergency care and pain relieving approaches. Copyright © 2007 by Türkiye Klinikleri.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".