Exploring the Needs of Parents with a Child with Chronic Pain: A Qualitative Secondary Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pediatric chronic pain affects 15-39% of children and their families, yet it remains under-recognized and undertreated by clinicians. Despite increasing numbers of children diagnosed with chronic pain, few qualitative studies have explored the experiences and needs of these families. Methods: A secondary analysis of 13 semi-structured interviews was conducted using a qualitative descriptive approach. These interviews featured parents of children attending a large children’s hospital in a major urban city in western Canada. Data was analyzed in three phases: coding, categorizing, and developing themes. Results: Four distinct parental needs were identified: increased awareness about pediatric chronic pain, faster access to care, validation of their child’s pain, and healthcare supports throughout their journey. These themes interplayed throughout the data and shaped parents’ ability to access appropriate care and support for their child with chronic pain. Conclusion: Unique challenges prevent parents from accessing timely care for their child with chronic pain. Increasing awareness about pediatric chronic pain can help parents gain validation for their child’s pain and result in faster access to care. Our findings highlight how parents with a child with chronic pain would benefit from additional supports to help them navigate the healthcare system.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".