Caregivers' Beliefs Regarding Pain in Children With Cognitive Impairment: Relation Between Pain Sensation and Reaction Increases With Severity of Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether caregivers of children with cognitive impairment (CI) have systematic beliefs regarding the pain of this special group of children and whether these beliefs are related to their general attitudes towards people with mental challenges, or their experience with, or knowledge about, children with CI . PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-five caregivers (52 parents and 13 health care providers) of children with significant CI. MEASURES: Caregivers completed the Mental Retardation Attitude Inventory-Revised and provided information regarding their previous experience and learning about children with CI. They also completed the Pain Opinion Questionnaire, indicating the percentage of children with mild, moderate, or severe/profound CI that they believe experience 5 facets of pain "less than", "the same as", or "more than" children without CI: sensation, emotional reaction, behavioral reaction, communication, and frequency. RESULTS: Caregivers believed children's pain Sensation becomes greater, relative to children without CI, as severity of CI increases and that pain reaction is most consistent with pain sensation for children with severe CI. They also believed children with mild CI may over-react to pain. Caregivers' beliefs regarding pain were not influenced by their general attitudes about people with mental challenges or by their experience with children with CI, but those with more learning regarding children with CI believed that they experience pain less than children without CI. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers have a priori beliefs regarding pain in children with CI that vary with level of cognitive impairment and pain facet. These beliefs could impact children's care.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".