Understanding Caregiver Judgments of Infant Pain: Contrasts of Parents, Nurses and Pediatricians

Author:

Pillai Riddell Rebecca R12,Horton Rachel E1,Hillgrove Jessica1,Craig Kenneth D3

Affiliation:

1. York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

2. The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

3. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that caregivers’ beliefs pertaining to infant pain and which infant pain cues are perceived to be important play an integral role in pediatric pain assessment and management.OBJECTIVES: Following a recent quasi-experimental study reporting on caregiver background and age differences in actual infant pain judgments, the present study clarified these findings by analyzing caregivers’ pain beliefs and the cues they use to make pain assessments, and by examining how the wording of belief questions influenced caregivers’ responses.METHODS: After making pain judgments based on video footage of infants between two and 18 months of age receiving immunizations, parents, nurses and pediatricians were required to respond to questionnaires regarding pain beliefs and importance of cues.RESULTS: Parents generally differed from pediatricians. Parents tended to have less optimal beliefs regarding medicating the youngest infants, were more influenced by question wording, and reported using many more cues when judging older infants than other caregiver groups. In terms of beliefs, influence of question wording and cue use, nurses tended to fall in between both groups; they displayed similarities to both parents and pediatricians.CONCLUSIONS: Paralleling the original findings on pain judgments, these findings suggest that parents differ from pediatricians in their pain beliefs and the cues they use to make pain judgments. Moreover, some similarities were found between parents and nurses, and between nurses and pediatricians. Finally, caution must be taken when interpreting research pertaining to beliefs about infant pain because question wording appears to influence interpretation.

Funder

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Publisher

Hindawi Limited

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,Neurology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3