Parental Pain Catastrophizing, Communication Ability, and Post-surgical Pain Outcomes Following Intrathecal Baclofen Implant Surgery for Patients With Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is strong evidence that psychosocial variables, including pain catastrophizing, influence parental and child ratings of pain, pain expression, and long-term outcomes among children with chronic pain. The role of these factors among children who have communication deficits due to cerebral palsy (CP) and other intellectual and developmental disabilities is currently unclear. In this study, parental pain catastrophizing was assessed before intrathecal baclofen (ITB) pump implantation for spasticity management in 40 children and adolescents with CP, aged 4 to 24 years. Pain was assessed before and after surgery with two methods: a parent-reported pain interference scale, and behavioral pain signs during a standardized range of motion exam. Linear mixed models with clinical/demographic factors and scores from the Pain Catastrophizing Scale for Parents (PCS-P), and child spoken language ability as predictors and the pain variables as the outcomes were implemented. On average, both pain outcomes improved after surgery. Only child spoken language ability predicted change in behavioral reactivity scores, with children with phrase speech showing an increase in reactivity at follow-up compared to pre-surgery levels, on average. A significant interaction between PCS-P scores and spoken language ability on change in pain interference scores over time showed that dyads with children with phrase speech whose parents reported high PCS-P scores reported the least improvement in pain interference at follow-up. Due to the preliminary nature of the study, future work is needed to investigate the parental behaviors that mediate the relationships between parental catastrophizing and pain outcomes in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".