Pain in Children With Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Pain is a common and distressing symptom of pediatric cancer, as reported by both children and their parents. Increasingly, children with cancer are cared for as outpatients, yet little is known about how parents manage their cancer-related pain. The aim of the current study was to examine pain prevalence and characteristics, and the pharmacological, physical, and psychological pain management strategies used by parents to manage their child's cancer pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 230 parents and caregivers (89% mothers) of children (mean age=8.93 y, SD=4.50) with cancer currently in treatment or who are survivors completed an online survey about their child's pain in the preceding month. RESULTS: Results indicated that children with cancer who were on active treatment and who were posttreatment experienced clinically significant levels of pain. Parents reported using more physical and psychological strategies than pharmacological strategies to manage their child's pain. The most frequently used physical/psychological strategy was distraction and acetaminophen was the most frequently administered pain medication. Parents' confidence in managing their child's pain was inversely associated with both how much pain they perceived their child had, and also whether they had given any pain medication. DISCUSSION: The results of this study suggest that despite parents' use of pain management strategies, management of cancer-related pain continues to be a problem for children during treatment and into survivorship.
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 | 0.016 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".