Knowledge translation in psychological interventions for pediatric pain: Bridging the gap between research and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is now firmly understood that a child’s response to pain is not simply a direct result of the level of tissue damage, but rather a combination of both physical and psychological variables. Establishing the multiple dimensions of the pain experience has served as an important first step in advancing the role of pediatric psychology in pain management (Kazdin & Kendall, 1998). Subsequent research has built upon this foundation and produced an array of psychological strategies to help children cope with their pain. Many cognitivebehavioral strategies have been deemed effective in managing both acute procedural pain (e.g. distraction, hypnosis, and guided imagery; Uman et al., 2006) and chronic or recurrent pain (e.g. multicomponent cognitive-behavioral treatment packages; Dahlquist & Switkin, 2003). Despite advances in the development of psychological interventions for pediatric pain management, research continues to suggest that evidence-based techniques remain relatively unused in clinical practice, and that children’s pain continues to be undertreated. While part of the problem is the continued use of specific flawed approaches (e.g. reassurance; McMurtry et al., 2006), the majority of research findings indicate that some children are simply not provided adequate management of their pain (Cummings et al., 1996; Ellis et al., 2002) and that many pediatric hospitals continue to use outdated or unsupported pain intervention programs (e.g. O’Byrne et al., 1997). The objective of this commentary is to identify some of the barriers in successfully translating psychological interventions from research to clinical practice, as well as to offer suggestions for bridging this gap. While psychological interventions may vary depending upon the type of pain (e.g. acute, chronic, injury-related, disease-related, postoperative), the purpose of the current commentary is to discuss the lack of knowledge translation for pediatric pain management in general, rather than knowledge translation issues related to specific strategies.
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 | 0.148 | 0.277 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".