Mothers’ and fathers’ responses to their child’s pain moderate the relationship between the child’s pain catastrophizing and disability☆
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preliminary evidence suggests that pain catastrophizing in children may be important in understanding how parents respond to their child's pain. However, no study has investigated whether parental responses, in turn, moderate the impact of child's catastrophizing upon pain outcomes. The present study was designed to address this, and investigated the association of the child's catastrophizing with different types of parental responses (ie, solicitousness, discouragement and coping promoting responses) and the extent to which parental responses moderate the association between the child's catastrophizing and disability. Participants were 386 school children and their parents. Analyses revealed significant associations between the child's pain catastrophizing and parental responses, but with mothers and fathers evidencing different patterns; ie, higher levels of the child's catastrophizing were significantly associated with lower levels of solicitousness by fathers, and with higher levels of discouragement by mothers. Moderation analyses indicated that father's solicitiousness moderated the association between catastrophizing and disability; the positive association between catastrophizing and the child's disability was further strengthened when fathers reported low levels of solicitousness, but became less pronounced when fathers reported high levels of solicitousness. Findings also revealed a moderating impact of mothers' and fathers' promotion of their child's well behaviour/coping. Specifically, the detrimental impact of child catastrophizing upon disability was less pronounced when parents reported high promotion of their child's well behaviours/coping. The findings of the present study suggest the importance of assessing and targeting parental responses to their child's pain to alter the adverse impact of the child's pain catastrophizing on pain outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".