A GROUP FOR PARENTS OF YOUTH WITH CHRONIC PAIN: RATIONALE, STRUCTURE, CONTENT, AND PRELIMINARY OUTCOME DATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Parenting a youth with chronic pain can be challenging and have a significant impact relationally, emotionally and financially on caregivers (Palermo, 2000; Lewandowski et al., 2010). There is a growing literature indicating that parent emotions (e.g., anxiety, depression), cognitions (e.g., coping, pain catastrophizing), and behaviours (e.g., attending to pain symptoms) can moderate a child’s adjustment to chronic pain (Logan & Scharff, 2005; Palermo et al., 2014; Palermo & Eccleston, 2008). Therefore, intervening with parents of youth with chronic pain is believed to foster better outcomes regarding children’s functioning (e.g., school attendance; Coakley & Wihak, 2017). OBJECTIVES No study has evaluated a stand-alone intervention targeted at parents of youth with chronic pain. Consequently, this poster presents a five week parenting group that we developed and ran on four occasions. Preliminary results pertaining to group feasability, satisfaction, and effectiveness will also be presented. DESIGN/METHODS The group is designed to augment the treatment of youth in our program and includes the following topics: chronic pain 101 (psychoeducation), impact of pain on the family, self-care, tools for managing a child’s pain, identifying and overcoming barriers, school partnerships, and celebrating successes. Each session involves homework review, a mindfulness activity, new material (inclusive of a didactic activity), goal-setting, and assigned readings. To date, 41 parents of youth with chronic pain have participated in the four group cycles. Outcomes were measured using the Adult Responses to Children’s Symptoms (ARCS) Questionnaire (Noel et al., 2015; Van Slyke & Walker, 2006) which parents completed at the start and end of the group. Feedback and parent satisfaction were also obtained on a feedback form designed by authors and given on the last session of group. RESULTS Overall, the group demonstrated adequate feasibility, was well-received by parents, and high satisfaction was reported. Preliminary data suggest that the group was helpful in reducing some parental responses associated with maladaptive child outcomes. More specifically, statistically significant decreases in protectiveness, monitoring, and minimizing (subscales of the ARCS) were found after the 5 week intervention. CONCLUSION “Anecdotally, many parents expressed uncertainty about how to respond when adolescents complained of pain and refused to go to school, and parents appeared eager for…strategies to help them negotiate the situation” (Logan & Simons, 2010, p. 833). Our results are consistent with previous literature (Logan & Simons, 2010; Saunders et al., 1994) and suggest that intervening with parents may help improve outcomes for youth 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".