My Child You Must Have Patience and <i>Kreng Jai</i>: Thai Parents and Child Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To elicit the experiences of parents in providing care for their hospitalized child's acute pain needs. DESIGN: Phenomenology, using in-depth interviews with 45 parents whose children were being cared for in five hospitals in Northeastern (Isan) Thailand. FINDINGS: The findings address Thai cultural beliefs regarding the experience of pain and the role societal expectations have on parental behavior in trying to meet their child's acute pain needs. Two themes emerged-"Understanding my child's pain: it's karma" and "Maintaining Kreng Jai"-which identify parent beliefs toward pain and pain treatment, as well as perceived barriers in securing pain management for their children. Together these two themes describe the essence of this study as parents experienced an "inner struggle in providing pain care." Pain was perceived as an inescapable part of life, and participants identified a preference for traditional remedies. Parents experienced a tension as they wanted to provide and secure pain care for their child but at the same time were reticent to approach staff with concerns about their child's care. CONCLUSIONS: Thai parents viewed pain as a normal consequence of life, and one had to use traditional remedies in addition to medicine to successfully treat pain. Societal behavioral expectations required children to have patience. Nevertheless, parents wanted professionals to show more empathy and provide more effective pain care. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Improvements in pediatric pain care must formally include parents. Culturally sensitive approaches that do not stereotype parents and children are needed to ensure that evidence-informed pain care is available for all children.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".