Investigating the relationship between children's self-reported coping strategies and repeated needle pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the majority of school-aged children associate immunizations with low levels of anxiety, fear, and pain, there is a small subset for whom needles are highly distressing (Humphrey, et al., 1992).Poorly managed, these individuals may come to avoid medical treatment (Ollendick, King, & Muris, 2002).Using Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) transactional theory of coping and Reid and colleagues' (1998) development and validation of the Pain Coping Questionnaire as frameworks, the present program of research elaborated on existing knowledge about how children cope with needles.As part of Studies 1 (N = 176) and 2 (N = 302), a Coping with Needles Questionnaire (CNQ) was developed and validated; both two-and three-subscale versions of the questionnaire were examined.The resulting CNQ was composed of and scored as two separate subscales: problem-focused and emotion-focused coping.Construct validity testing demonstrated that emotion-focused coping was robustly associated with more negative experience with needles (i.e., higher anxiety, fear, pain, and lower self-Espeseth, Jamie Boychuk, Erin
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".