Paediatricians' perceptions of a potential online psychosocial intervention for children with recurrent abdominal pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate paediatricians' perceived effectiveness of an online psychosocial intervention for children with recurrent abdominal pain (RAP). Also, to explore which elements of this intervention they would consider necessary when applied in the clinical context. METHODS: A total of 131 paediatricians affiliated to Catalan and Balearic paediatric societies completed an online survey about how effective they would perceive an online psychosocial intervention for RAP (for reducing pain intensity, reducing disability and preventing chronicity) and how this intervention should be carried out. They were asked about the perceived effectiveness of the standard medical treatments they routinely applied for RAP and also their opinion of face-to-face psychosocial interventions. RESULTS: A face-to face psychosocial intervention was considered better (to reduce pain intensity, reduce disability and prevent chronic pain) than an online psychological intervention and the standard medical treatment. Online and face-to-face psychosocial interventions are considered equally useful for children with mild disability, but a face-to-face psychosocial intervention is considered better for those with moderate and severe levels of disability. Paediatricians considered that an online psychosocial intervention for children with RAP should be simple and consistent; it should provide easy access for users; and its interface should be easy to use and attractive. CONCLUSIONS: Paediatricians show a positive attitude towards a potential online psychosocial intervention for children and adolescents with RAP. However, they do not use the Internet for offering health care, and they would prefer a face-to-face psychosocial intervention.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".