SMART4Pain: Feasibility of a Two-Arm Pilot Study of an Integrated Rehabilitation Program for Adolescents and Their Parents for Improving Pain Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic pain in youth has an unsung etiology and limited treatment options. Affected adolescents show difficulties in different functioning domains, and their parents can develop associated distress, which negatively influences the adolescent’s capacity to adjust to pain. The aims of this study are the following: (1) to develop an internet-delivered (online) pain intervention (SMART4Pain) program for adolescents and their parents, and to test its feasibility and acceptability; (2) to evaluate, in adolescents, the impact of the face-to-face, randomized, two-armed (i.e., CBT or biofeedback), open-label pilot study, developed together with the online program. The overall program consisted of six sessions scheduled over six weeks. Twenty adolescents (N = 20) and their parents (N = 20) completed the entire program and are included in this study. The results showed that all interventions were feasible and acceptable, as well as potentially effective in improving quality of life. Only the group receiving the biofeedback intervention showed some improvements in psychological indicators of stress. In conclusion, more research is needed to better understand and develop new, multimodal rehabilitation programs in outpatient settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".