Youngsters' perceptions of the experience of pain and utilisation of over‐the‐counter pain medication as needed in community: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pain is common in youngsters. No matter its nature, youngsters' consideration of pain is complex since its communications vary as a function of several components. The aim of this study is to explore the youngsters' perception linked to their experience of physiological pain at the home/family setting, as well as their experience with the utilisation of over-the-counter pain medication as needed. DESIGN AND METHODS: A qualitative exploratory study was undertaken with 22 youngsters aged 5-17 years old. Semidirected interviews led to the understanding of these components by means of the pain experiences. Thematic analysis allowed the detection of the themes and subthemes emerging from the verbatim collected with the participants. RESULTS: The way pain is described is influenced by the child's development, previous experiences, and the projection of having pain. The pain communication is influenced by the severity perceived, the beliefs of the youngster experiencing pain, the comparison of the pain communication with his brothers and sisters, as well as the anticipated consequences of expressing his pain. The choice of behaviour towards pain is influenced by self-management through nonpharmacological management, with medicines if needed, and by family modelization. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study confirms that previous pain experiences, beliefs related to pain tolerance and intended reactions of parents exert influence not only on the communication of pain, but also on youngsters' behaviour towards pain. It is important to consider these elements whenever youngsters' pain is evaluated.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".