When “a headache is not just a headache”: A qualitative examination of parent and child experiences of pain after childhood cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Today, more than 80% of children diagnosed with cancer are expected to survive. Despite the high prevalence of pain associated with the diagnosis and treatment of childhood cancer, there is a limited understanding of how having cancer shapes children's experience and meaning of pain after treatment has ended. This study addresses this gap by exploring childhood cancer survivors' (CCS') experiences of pain from their perspective and the perspective of their parents. METHODS: Twenty semi-structured interviews were completed with CCS (50% female; mean age = 13.20 y, range = 8-17 y) and their parents (90% mothers). Data were analyzed using interpretive phenomenological analysis. RESULTS: Analyses revealed three superordinate themes present in the data: (a) pain is a changed experience after childhood cancer; (b) new or ambiguous pains may be interpreted by CCS and parents as a threat of disease recurrence, late effects, or a secondary cancer; and (c) pain interpretation occurs within the broader context of how CCS and parents appraise their cancer experience. Parents generally appraised their child's cancer and pain as more threatening and were influential in guiding their child's interpretations. CONCLUSIONS: The cancer experience played an important role in shaping CCS' and their parents' experience and interpretation of pain in survivorship. This study provides novel data to inform the development and refinement of new and existing conceptual models of pain and symptom perception after cancer. The results also point to key areas for future investigation and clinical intervention to address the issue of pain in cancer survivorship.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".