Longitudinal Associations Between Pain and Psychosocial Adjustment in Youth With Spina Bifida
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined: (a) the nature and prevalence of pain in youth with spina bifida (SB) (b) common coping responses to pain, and (c) longitudinal, bi-directional associations between internalizing symptoms and pain characteristics. METHODS: Data were collected from youth (N = 140, 53.6% female, ages 8-15 at Time 1) and their parents and teachers at two time points spaced 2 years apart. Youth reported on several pain characteristics and coping responses. Multiple informants reported on child internalizing symptoms. Evaluation of Aims 1-3 was based on descriptive analyses, bivariate correlations, and linear and logistic regressions. RESULTS: About 25% of the sample reported chronic pain (e.g., experiencing pain one or more times per week over the past 3 months) at Time 1 or 2, with roughly one-third of this chronic pain subsample reporting chronic pain both time points. Pain was usually rated as mild in intensity for the full sample and most commonly experienced in the head, abdomen, and back, and described as "aching." Youth with chronic pain reported significantly higher pain intensity and tended to use condition-specific methods to cope with pain (e.g., taking off braces). In 2 of 10 analyses, internalizing symptoms at Time 1 were associated with chronic pain and pain intensity at Time 2. CONCLUSIONS: Roughly one-fourth of youth with SB are at risk for experiencing chronic pain, highlighting the need for increased assessment and treatment of pain in this population. Youth psychological functioning appears to more often precede, rather than being a consequence of pain symptoms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".