Mindfulness-based Intervention for Female Adolescents with Chronic Pain: A Pilot Randomized Trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of a randomized-controlled trial measuring the impact of an adapted mindfulness-based intervention (MBI) in female adolescents with chronic pain. METHODS: This was a single center, single-blind, prospective, experimental, longitudinal trial conducted in a pediatric tertiary care center. Participants had a history of chronic pain during at least three months. They were randomized into an intervention group or a wait-list control group. Both groups successively followed an adapted eight-week MBI designed specifically for adolescents with chronic pain. Pre-determined criteria were established to assess the feasibility, validity and acceptability of the study model. Data evaluating changes in quality of life, depression, anxiety, pain perception, psychological distress and salivary cortisol were collected throughout the 4-month study period. RESULTS: Nineteen female participants completed the study and had a mean age of 15.8 years (range 13.9 -17.8). Attrition rate was low (17%). Attendance to mindfulness sessions (84%) and compliance to study protocol (100%) were high. All participants reported a positive change in the way they coped with pain. No changes in quality of life, depression, anxiety, pain perception, and psychological distress were detected. Significant reductions in pre-and post-mindfulness session salivary cortisol levels were observed (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mindfulness is a promising therapeutic approach for which limited data exist in adolescents with chronic pain. Our study indicates the feasibility of conducting such interventions in teenage girls. A large trial is needed to demonstrate the efficacy and bio-physiological impacts of MBIs in teenagers with chronic 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".