What Do the Parents of Children Who Have Chronic Pain Expect from Their First Visit to a Pediatric Chronic Pain Clinic?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic pain in childhood is increasingly recognized as a significant clinical problem. Best-practice management of pediatric chronic pain in a multidisciplinary pain clinic involves a variety of treatment modalities. It is important that parents of children treated in these settings understand the different treatment options available for their children. By involving parents more effectively, care providers may more efficiently address unmet treatment needs and improve tailoring of treatment programs aimed at increasing function, reducing pain-related disability and improving quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To explore the expectations held by parents for their first visit to a pediatric multidisciplinary pain clinic. METHODS: Fourteen parents completed a paper-based survey exploring their expectations immediately before their first visit to a multidisciplinary pediatric pain clinic in a tertiary care children's hospital. RESULTS: Responses from parents suggest a clear desire for information about the causes of their child's pain, treatment options available at the pain clinic, effective strategies to enhance children's ability to cope with pain, and the effects of pain on both body and mood. Most parents rated the various treatment options as important for their child. All parents indicated it was very important to have the pain team 'be there' for them. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that parents want more information about chronic pain and treatment options. Pediatric chronic pain clinics have the ability to assist children with chronic pain and their families considerably by providing information about chronic pain and the various treatment options available to them.
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 | 0.021 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".