50 Bridging the gap between education and health: What youth need educators to know about chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Chronic pain is common and affects 20% of children and youth. Those with chronic pain often have a difficult time regularly attending school, with up to 50% of children and youth with chronic pain missing some school. Specific accommodations that benefit youth are unknown. Nearly half of parents of youth with chronic pain report their child’s grades dropped since pain onset. Both parents and youth report “moderate levels of interference” with learning. Most common accommodations include being sent to the nurse, being sent home and receiving extensions on assignments. While these strategies may be helpful for pain conditions expected to resolve, strategies that support staying in and succeeding at school are required for youth with chronic pain. Objectives This study aims to determine what educators need to know to best support youth with chronic pain in the academic setting. More specifically, 1) to determine what youth with chronic pain, parents of youth, educators, and healthcare professionals want educators to know about supporting students with chronic pain, and 2) to describe health professionals’ and educators’ attitudes and knowledge of pediatric chronic pain. Design/Methods Inclusion criteria include youth age 12-25 years with chronic pain and parents, health professionals and educators of youth with chronic pain. The recruitment strategy includes distribution of the survey via the Saskatchewan pediatric chronic pain clinic research contact lists, the Canadian Paediatric Society Section of Community Paediatrics listserve and social media. This online cross-sectional survey includes participant demographics and questions about accommodations noted to be helpful for youth with chronic pain. In addition, educator and health professional surveys include the 26-item Chronic Pain Myth Scale (CPMS). Results The study group includes 87 participants, 26 youth, 18 family/friends, 19 educators, and 24 health professionals. Some suggested school accommodations include: access to technology in class, teachers providing notes for students, education on chronic pain for teachers and students, and improved communication and collaboration between the youth, their healthcare team and educators. The majority of health professionals and educators report some knowledge, positive beliefs and attitudes towards people suffering from chronic pain (M=3.03, SD= .34). Conclusion Chronic pain is common and affects school attendance and achievement. Suggestions for accommodations to help those with chronic pain in the academic setting are made. Educators and health professionals indicated varying levels of knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, with some educators indicating they would like to receive education about chronic pain. Improved communication between school-based pupil support teams and health care teams is warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".