Psychological Interventions for Parents of Youth With Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Parents are integral to their youth's chronic pain experiences, and intervening with parents may improve parent and youth functioning. Existing systematic reviews are not specific to pain or do not systematically report critical aspects to facilitate implementation of parent interventions in diverse settings. Thus, this scoping review aimed to map published parent interventions for pediatric chronic pain to summarize the participant and intervention characteristics, treatment components, methods, outcomes, feasibility, and acceptability, as well as identify gaps for future research. METHODS: Four databases were searched (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Google Scholar). Studies of any design reporting psychological interventions including parents of youth (0 to 18 y) with chronic pain were included. Data on study characteristics, treatment components, effectiveness, and feasibility/acceptability were extracted. RESULTS: Fifty-four studies met inclusion criteria from 9312 unique titles. The majority were nonrandomized cognitive-behavioral therapy interventions delivered individually. The degree of parent participation ranged from 17% to 100%; the average enrollment rate was 68%. Reported parent and youth outcomes were variable; 26% of studies did not include any parent-related outcomes. DISCUSSION: Parent interventions may be a helpful and feasible way to support parents and youth with chronic pain. There is variability across study characteristics, treatment content/aims, parent participation, and parent/youth outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".