Factors Related to Agreement Between Child and Caregiver Report of Child Functioning With Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Valid and efficient assessment of patient-reported outcomes remains a priority to guide pain treatment and research. PROMIS pediatric self-report and parent proxy measures offer feasible and rigorous evaluation of functioning in children with chronic conditions, including pain. A key challenge is determining the usefulness of multisource information from children and caregivers for understanding pain and function. Our primary aim examined child-caregiver agreement across child functioning domains. Our secondary aim examined child and caregiver factors associated with the child-caregiver agreement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of 806 children with chronic pain (Mage=14.50 y; 72% female individuals) and a caregiver (Mage=45.82 y; 85% mothers) completed PROMIS pediatric self-report and parent proxy measures of anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain interference, and mobility before intake in an interdisciplinary outpatient pediatric chronic pain program. RESULTS: The agreement was poor to good depending on the evaluation method (effect size, intraclass correlation, and clinical significance interpretation). Caregivers generally reported worse child symptoms across domains compared with child self-report. The greatest discrepancy was observed for child anxiety, pain interference, and peer relations, with the greatest agreement for child mobility. The greater caregiver-child discrepancy was found for younger children, girls, with a higher child or caregiver pain catastrophizing, and poorer caregiver physical or mental health. DISCUSSION: Findings are discussed within the interpersonal context of pain and indicate the relevance of both child and caregiver perspectives to personalize chronic pain assessment and treatment. Findings can be used by clinicians and researchers to guide whether and how to integrate multi-informant reports about child chronic pain functioning.
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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".