Development of Conceptual and Process Models of Growing Pains: A Mixed-Method Research Design
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Despite being a common childhood complaint there is little research on growing pains. Existing research is inconsistent with regard to sample selection and prevalence rates.There are only two English language intervention studies, and with the exception of associations noted in prevalence research, there has been no systematic research on the potential impact of growing pains on daily activities.Lack of a universal definition of growing pains poses difficulty for both diagnosis and research.The purposes of the current investigation were to propose a definition of growing pains grounded in literature and clinical practice, to develop a conceptual model of growing pains, and to understand children's experiences with growing pains.A mixed-method research program involved four phases.In phase I, a survey of physicians indicated the following definition of growing pains: Intermittent pain of unknown etiology, occurring nocturnally in the lower limbs.Features that may occur in some cases, but not part of the definition, include arm pain and daytime pain.In phase II, non-parametric statistical analyses of child, familial, and environmental variables in a rheumatology clinic database were conducted to determine potential risk factors for growing pains.Logistic regression modeling indicated an association between growing pains and maternal illness or rash during the pregnancy, maternal smoking during the pregnancy, delayed pull to standing (i.e., greater than age 10 months), and family histories of back pain and arthritis.Potential mechanisms for these empirical associations are explored.In phase III, qualitative interviews with children were conducted to develop a grounded theory of how children iii process their experiences.Children engaged in a process of evaluating their current and past experiences of growing pains to determine how to manage specific pain episodes.Their evaluation was influenced by how they understood their pain which in turn was influenced by their intrapersonal and interpersonal experiences.Phase IV integrated results and existing literature to develop a conceptual model of growing pains which outlines characteristic features, predisposing factors, triggers, alleviating actions, and associated psychosocial features.Implications of the process theory and the conceptual model of growing pains with regard to clinical practice and future research are discussed.I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Carl von Baeyer, for his patience, diligence, and guidance.I would also like to extend my gratitude to the members of my advisory committee: to the late Dr. Margaret McKim for guidance in the initial stages of this research; to Dr. Tammy Marche for her attention to detail and for facilitating clarity in my thinking
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,030 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».