Parent–child interactions during pediatric venipuncture: Investigating the role of parent traits, beliefs, and behaviors in relation to child outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The social context is critical to children’s pain, and parents frequently form a major aspect of this context. We addressed several gaps in our understanding of parent–child interactions during painful procedures and identified intrapersonal contributions to parental affective responses and behaviors. We used the pain empathy model framework to examine parent–child interactions during venipuncture to determine predictors of parent distraction and reassurance.Aims: We examined relations among parent and child behaviors along with parent fear and child pain and fear. We empirically tested the contribution of top-down influences in predicting the use of two common parent utterances, reassurance and distraction during venipuncture, including parent beliefs about these behaviors.Methods: Venipunctures of 100 5- to 10-year-old children were filmed, and parent–child interactions were coded using the full 35 item Child Adult Medical Procedure Interaction Scale. Two codes were of particular interest: reassurance and distraction. Self-report measures included child fear and pain, parent fear, trait anxiety, empathy, pain catastrophizing, and beliefs about reassurance and distraction.Results: Findings supported original Child–Adult Medical Procedure Interaction Scale codes linking parent “distress-promoting” behaviors with poorer child outcomes and parent “coping-promoting” behaviors with improved child outcomes. Parent traits accounted for a small portion of the variance in parent reassurance and distraction.Conclusions: Findings are consistent with research on coping and distress promoting behaviors. Using a novel framework of the pain empathy model, we found that parent traits largely did not predict their procedural behaviors, which were more strongly related to child distress behaviors during the needle and parent beliefs about the behaviors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".