A Mindfulness Program Adapted for Adolescents With Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Pediatric chronic pain is a major health issue that can lead to significant interference in daily functioning. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBI's), which emphasize acceptance rather than control of pain, have gained increasing attention as a viable treatment option among adults with chronic pain. The effectiveness of MBIs for chronic pain in pediatric populations remains largely unknown. This prospective pre-post interventional study was conducted to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and initial effectiveness of an 8-week group MBI adapted for adolescents (MBI-A) with chronic pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Self-report measures assessing pain characteristics, anxiety, depression, disability, pain catastrophizing, perceived social support, mindfulness, and pain acceptance were administered at baseline, postintervention, and at a 3-month follow-up. In addition, session data were collected to assess each session's impact on patients' coping with pain and stress, body awareness, and sense of feeling less alone. RESULTS: In total, 42 consecutive patients in a tertiary care chronic pain clinic met eligibility criteria to participate in the MBI-A group. Of these, 21 participated. A treatment completion rate of 90.5% was observed. Between session mindfulness practice was reported by 77% of participants. Participants were highly satisfied with the MBI-A and all participants reported they would recommend the group to a friend. Improvements in pain acceptance were observed between baseline and the 3-month follow-up, in domains of Pain Willingness and Activity Engagement. Session data revealed improved body awareness and improved ability to cope with stress across sessions. DISCUSSION: The MBI-A is a feasible, well-received intervention for adolescents with chronic pain conditions. Findings support the need for further investigation of the efficacy of MBI-A through randomized-controlled trials.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".