The relationship between caregiver sensitivity and infant pain behaviors across the first year of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research has begun to examine discrete caregiver pain management behaviors in the infant immunization context. However, there is a dearth of research exploring more global caregiving constructs, such as emotional availability, which can be used to examine the overall sensitivity of caregiver pain management. The aim of the present study was to examine the relationships between caregiver sensitivity (emotional availability) and infant pain behavior (baseline, immediately post-needle, 1 min after needle) over the first year of life. Parents and infants were a part of a Canadian longitudinal cohort (the Opportunities to Understand Childhood Hurt or OUCH cohort) followed up during their 2-, 4-, 6-, and 12-month immunizations (current n=731). Both within-age group analyses and over-age analyses were performed. Results indicated that: (1) over age, previous infant pain behavior predicts future infant pain behavior, but this varied depending on timing of pain response and age of infant; (2) over age, previous caregiver sensitivity strongly predicts future caregiver sensitivity; and (3) the concurrent relationship between caregiver sensitivity and every type of infant pain response is only consistently seen at the 12-month immunization. Caregiver sensitivity to the infant in pain is predicted most reliably from previous caregiver sensitivity, not infant pain behaviour. The significant concurrent relationship between caregiver sensitivity and infant pain behaviours is not seen until 12 months, replicating patterns in the infant development literature regarding the time at which the attachment relationship between parent and child can be reliably measured. Discussion addresses implications for both researchers and clinicians who work with infants in pain.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".