Testing the intergenerational model of transmission of risk for chronic pain from parents to their children: an empirical investigation of social transmission pathways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children of parents with chronic pain have higher rates of pain and internalizing (eg, anxiety and depressive) symptoms than children of parents without chronic pain. Parental modeling of pain behaviour and reinforcement of child pain have been hypothesized to underlie these relationships. These mechanisms were tested in a sample of 72 parents with chronic pain and their children (aged 8-15 years). Standardized measures were completed by parents (pain characteristics, pain interference, and child internalizing) and children (pain catastrophizing, pain over previous 3 months, and internalizing). In a laboratory session, children completed the cold pressor task in the presence of their parent, and parent-child verbalizations were coded. Significant indirect effects of parental pain interference on child self-reported (B = 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.29) and parent-reported (B = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.03-0.40) internalizing symptoms through child pain catastrophizing were found (parental modeling mechanism), and were not moderated by child chronic pain status. Significant indirect effects were found between parent pain-attending verbalizations and child self-reported (B = 2.58, 95% CI: 1.03-5.31) and parent-reported (B = 2.18, 95% CI: 0.93-4.27) cold pressor task pain intensity and tolerance (B = -1.02, 95% CI: -1.92 to -0.42) through child pain-attending verbalizations (parental reinforcement mechanism). Although further understanding of the temporal relationships between these variables is needed, the current study identifies constructs (eg, parent pain interference, child pain catastrophizing, and parent reinforcement of child pain) that should be further examined as potential targets for prevention and intervention of pain and internalizing symptoms in children of parents 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".