The influence of pain memories on children’s and adolescents’ post-surgical pain experience: A longitudinal dyadic analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although children's pain memories have been shown to be a powerful predictor of subsequent pain experiences in acute procedural and experimental pain settings, little is known about the influence of children's and parents' pain memories on children's future pain experiences in other painful contexts. This study used a dyadic approach to examine the roles of children's and parents' memories of pain on their subsequent reporting of postsurgical pain several months after the child underwent a major surgical procedure. METHOD: The sample included 66 parent-child dyads (Mage youth = 14.73 years, SD = 2.01) recruited from 2 tertiary level pediatric hospitals. At baseline, children and parents reported on their catastrophic thinking about the child's pain. Parent and child reports of child pain were collected at approximately 1 month and 5 months postsurgery. At 2-4 months postsurgery, children's and parents' memories for postsurgical pain were assessed. RESULTS: Results revealed that children's, but not parents', pain memories were a strong predictor of subsequent pain experienced at 5 months postsurgery. Children's and parents' memories for pain did not influence each others' subsequent pain reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that children's pain memories influence their continued recovery from postsurgical pain and may contribute to pain persistence. Implications for intervention and prevention are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".