Parents’ experiences with pediatric chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Pediatric chronic pain affects 15%–39% of children. Chronic pain can have significant negative effects on a child’s physical functioning, psychological and cognitive functioning, quality of life, and social functioning. Parents of children with chronic pain have reported being affected by their child’s condition. There have been few studies exploring the experiences of parents of children with chronic pain through a qualitative descriptive lens.Methods Thirteen parents from a pediatric chronic pain clinic participated in semistructured interviews. Concurrent data collection and analysis occurred to allow for follow-up of ideas that emerged during analysis. Three phases of analysis occurred: coding, categorizing, and developing themes.Results Three themes were developed: (1) Parents’ emotional journey; (2) chronic pain affects the entire family; and (3) social support is critical. Parents described emotions caused by the arduous process of obtaining a chronic pain diagnosis, followed by difficulties finding strategies to help their child manage the pain. Family life was affected because special accommodations often had to be made. Families were affected financially, incurring costs due to time off of work or additional therapies. Finally, parents stressed the importance of a strong social support network to provide assistance and flexibility for the changing needs of their child.Discussion This research identified a better understanding of the impact of pediatric chronic pain on parents. These findings can be used to provide and promote more effective treatments and education to improve the psychological, physical, and social well-being of children with pediatric chronic pain and their families.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".