Changes in Parent Psychological Flexibility after a One-Time Mindfulness-Based Intervention for Parents of Adolescents with Persistent Pain Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parenting a child with chronic pain can be stressful and impact parent functioning in a variety of areas. Several studies have examined mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) for parents of children with different health and mental health conditions. However, no studies to date have examined MBIs for parents of children with pain conditions. This study aimed to: (1) determine the feasibility and acceptability of a one-time MBI workshop for parents (n = 34) of adolescents with painful conditions (chronic pain and inflammatory bowel disease) who were participating in a concurrent mindfulness group for adolescents with pain, and (2) examine changes in parent mindfulness and psychological flexibility following the intervention. A mixed-method design was used. In terms of feasibility and acceptability, high recruitment and retention rates were observed, and parents reported high satisfaction scores with the workshop. Changes pre to post intervention showed that dimensions of parent psychological flexibility, but not parent mindfulness, improved following participation in the workshop. Qualitative analyses based on parent responses on a questionnaire uncovered seven themes of parent “takeaways” following participation in the workshop: Mindfulness Skills, Not Alone, Psychological Flexibility, Parent–Child Interactions, Self-Efficacy, Optimism/Positivity/Hope, and Awareness of Values. Taken together, these findings suggest that a one-time MBI workshop offered to parents whose teen was participating in a concurrent mindfulness group for pain is a feasible and promising intervention for parents of children with pain conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".