Caregiver-Reported Pain Management Practices for Individuals With Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate types and intensity of pain experienced by individuals with cerebral palsy (CP) and common pain-relieving approaches used by caregivers. DESIGN: The approach was cross-sectional, using standardized interviews. SETTING: Individuals with CP were recruited from a specialty health care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-six individuals (N=86; mean age, 17.2 years; male, 58%) with CP and complex communication needs participated. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain type, mean pain intensity (MPI) (graded on a scale of 0=no pain to 10=worst possible pain), and mean pain relief (MPR) (graded on a scale of 0=intervention did not help at all to 10=intervention completely relieved pain) were assessed by caregiver report as part of the Dalhousie Pain Interview for each type of pain experienced in the previous 7 days. RESULTS: Caregivers reported that 58 participants (67%) had experienced pain in the previous 7 days. MPI was 7.7±1.8 when the pain was worst in the previous 7 days. The 2 most common types of pain included musculoskeletal pain (n=70) and gastrointestinal pain (n=11). The most frequent treatment to relieve musculoskeletal pain was changing positions (n=27, MPI=5.1±2.3, MPR=6.6±2.1), medication (n=25, MPI=7.4±1.6, MPR=5.3±1.9), and massage (n=19, MPI=6.7±1.9, MPR=5.2±1.7). To treat gastrointestinal pain, medication was typically used (n=4, MPI=4.8±1.4, MPR=5.5±1.0), although no treatment was just as common (n=4, MPI=4.5±2.3). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that musculoskeletal pain is prevalent in individuals with CP, and changing physical positions and providing medication are strategies most used by caregivers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".