Interpersonal Relationships in Adolescent Chronic Pain: A Qualitative Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous qualitative studies suggest that adolescents with chronic pain experience disruptions to their interpersonal relationships. A synthesis of this research has not yet been conducted. Using a qualitative metasynthesis approach, we collated, interpreted and (re)presented what is known about how adolescents with chronic pain and their significant others describe their interpersonal relationships. A systematic search strategy was developed to identify and retrieve all primary studies focused on exploring social relationships of adolescents with chronic pain and their significant others using qualitative methodology published by December 31, 2016. Searches identified 1,309 articles, with 8 articles meeting inclusion criteria. Included articles were reviewed for quality and thematic content. Overall, these articles included 127 participants, comprising adolescents with pain, parents, siblings, and peers. Data was characterized by two themes: restriction and tensions. Findings highlighted the complex and typically deleterious impact of chronic pain on relationships held by adolescents with chronic pain and significant others (e.g., parents). Data illustrated tensions between adolescents’ and others’ perceptions of pain on everyday life in addition to a sense of pain restricting adolescent and parental relationships through processes of isolation and difference. Findings also identified the strengthening of relationships due to challenges associated with living with adolescent chronic pain. Study results highlight the importance of assessing the impact of pain on interpersonal relationships. Second, findings illustrate the need to develop and test treatment approaches to enable adolescents and their family members to maintain and strengthen positive interpersonal relationships and to develop more adaptive social functioning.
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 | 0.056 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".