Attributions and Coping in Children’s Pain Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine how children's injury attributions and coping strategies relate to procedure-related distress during unplanned medical procedures (laceration repair). METHODS: Children (N = 50) with minor lacerations were assessed from emergency department admittance until discharge. Children's attributions of causes regarding their injury were assessed, and the Procedural Behavior Checklist was administered to each child (to assess coping strategies and procedure-related distress). RESULTS: Internally focused attributions of blame correlated with higher distress. Overall, children who reported primary-control coping, as opposed to secondary-control coping and relinquished-control coping, exhibited more pain during the procedure. Children who reported secondary-control coping, as opposed to relinquished-control coping, reported less pain after the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Injury attributions and coping style are significant factors in children's pain experiences. These results suggest that self-blame may heighten subsequent pain experiences. In addition, similar coping strategies appear to be adaptive for unplanned medical procedures as have been found for planned medical procedures.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".