A “dyadic dance”: pain catastrophizing moderates the daily relationships between parent mood and protective responses and child chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children's experience of chronic pain is influenced by the psychological and behavioural responses of their parents. However, the majority of research has been cross-sectional, precluding examination of how these dynamic relationships unfold over time. This study used a microlongitudinal design to examine the daily relationships between parent mood and protective responses and child chronic pain. We also examined the moderating roles of child and parent pain catastrophizing to determine how the affective-motivational context may alter the influence of parent factors. Participants included 95 youth with idiopathic chronic pain (Mage = 14.08; 71.6% female) and their parents. At baseline, parents and youth reported on their catastrophic thinking about child pain. For 7 consecutive days, parents completed daily assessments of their mood and protective responses, while youth completed assessments of their pain intensity, unpleasantness, and interference. Multilevel path analyses were conducted. At a daily level, greater parent protectiveness significantly predicted higher youth pain unpleasantness, interference, and intensity; more negative parent mood significantly predicted higher youth pain intensity and unpleasantness. Higher baseline youth pain catastrophizing predicted a stronger daily association between parent mood and youth pain unpleasantness and intensity. Higher baseline parent pain catastrophizing predicted a weaker daily association between parent protectiveness and youth pain interference. Findings suggest that parent mood and protective responses are dynamic, daily predictors of child pain. Findings also underscore the importance of addressing parents' daily mental health and protectiveness, among youth with chronic pain, and suggest different intervention targets depending on levels of child and parent catastrophizing.
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 | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".