Youth and parent perceptions on participating in specialized multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation options: A qualitative timeline effect analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Little is known about how the specialized treatment journey is perceived by youth with pain-related disability and their parents.Aims: Describe and compare the treatment effects and outcomes as perceived by youth and their parents enrolled in intensive interdisciplinary pain treatment (IIPT) or multimodal treatment (MMT).Methods: Eleven IIPT youth and five parents and three MMT youth and five parents were recruited. All were asked to complete a treatment journey timeline, followed by separately conducted semistructured interviews. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using reflective thematic analysis.Results: The main themes spanned the treatment trajectory. All participants described similar initial struggles (Theme 1). Positive and negative treatment effects associated with acquisitions and disruptions (Theme 2), and outcomes post-discharge related to supports and realities (Theme 3) emerged. Knowledge, skills, and support acquisition during treatment and feeling empowered and confident to self-manage postdischarge were identified as IIPT benefits. However, the change effort and life disruptions required and the difficulty transitioning to real life postprogram were acknowledged as detrimental IIPT impacts. Continuing with life as usual and maintaining supports in daily contexts (e.g., school personnel, friends) were reported MMT benefits. However, the challenges of managing pain, treatment adherence within the competing demands of daily realities, and the lack of support to integrate strategies were emphasized as detrimental MMT impacts.Conclusions: Detailed impacts of two specialized multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation interventions on the lives of youth with pain-related disability and their parents are described. The treatments benefits and previously unexplored detrimental effects are unveiled.
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".