Parent Pain Cognitions and Treatment Adherence in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Given the high levels of pain and low rates of treatment adherence in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and their families, this study sought to examine the relationship between parent pain cognitions (i.e., pain catastrophizing, fear of pain) and treatment adherence, and how barriers to treatment (e.g., forgetting treatments, children resisting injections) may be implicated in this relationship. METHODS: Parents of children under 18 years of age who have been diagnosed with JIA were recruited to complete an online survey. In total, 221 parents (93% mothers) of children aged 2-17 years (M = 11.10, SD = 4.25) took part, completing questions regarding their pain cognitions, perceived barriers to treatment, and their child's arthritis treatment adherence ability. RESULTS: Hierarchical regressions demonstrated that both pain cognitions (i.e., pain catastrophizing and fear of pain) were related to a decrease in parent-reported treatment adherence, however, pain catastrophizing was no longer significant when fear of pain was added to the model. The presence of treatment barriers partially mediated the relationship between fear of pain and treatment adherence, above and beyond the alternate model proposed. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that parent pain catastrophizing and fears of pain are related to a greater difficulty following treatment plans, possibly in part because of barriers parents experience that preclude adherence. Given these findings, the identification and management of parent pain cognitions is critical to improving treatment adherence and outcomes for children with JIA 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".