The lived experience of anxiety and the many facets of pain: A qualitative, arts-based approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Findings reported in this article emerged from the study titled “Youth’s Voices: Their Lives and Experiences of Living with an Anxiety Disorder.” Though the initial focus of this study was not on the pain experiences of youth living with an anxiety disorder, it became apparent from the very first interviews that pain and suffering was key in the youth lived experience, permeating their everyday lives and impeding their participation and functioning in the world.Aims: The aim of this article is to highlight the ways in which pain is a central experience for young people living with an anxiety disorder.Methods: The study was approached from the qualitative research design of hermeneutic phenomenology. Fifty-eight young people who were living with anxiety disorders and their parents participated in the study. Youth took part in multiple qualitative open-ended interviews and the participatory arts-based method of photovoice. Themes were developed using van Manen’s method of data analysis.Results: The overall theme emerged as “anxiety is very much about pain.” The four subthemes are (1) embodied experience of anxiety: physical pain; (2) a prominent symptom of anxiety: mental–emotional pain; (3) difficult interpersonal relationships: social pain; and (4) articulating their pain.Conclusions: Use of qualitative, arts-based methodologies provided the opportunity and space for youth with anxiety to articulate their multifaceted experience with pain in their own words.This work reinforces the need for use of qualitative approaches to understanding pain experiences in young people.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".