Young people making sense of pain: Cognitive appraisal, function, and pain in 8–16 year old children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recurrent pain is a common childhood problem which for some becomes chronic and is associated with severely impaired functioning. Relationships of psychological variables with impaired functioning have rarely been investigated in samples of children reporting pain in non-clinical settings. The aim of this study was to examine the role of cognitive appraisal in the relationship between chronic pain and level of functioning in a normal school-attending population of children who report pain as a common experience. Five hundred and sixty one schoolchildren aged between 8 and 16 years and their parents participated in a cross-sectional interview and questionnaire study. Child functioning was measured in two ways: self-reported quality of life, and self-reported functional disability associated with pain. Results showed a consistent pattern across both specific measures of functioning used. Catastrophic appraisals of pain can explain partially the functional impairment found in a sample of normal schoolchildren with chronic pain. Positive expectations about ability, the responsibility to exert control over the pain, and the belief that medication and doctors will help to control the pain, were found to be protective of normal functioning in chronic pain. Cognitive factors were found to mediate but not moderate the relationship between pain and disability, and quality of life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".