Communicating with children about ‘everyday’ pain and injury: A Delphi study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 'Everyday' pain experiences are potentially critical in shaping our beliefs and behaviours around injury and pain. Influenced by social, cultural and environmental contexts, they form the foundation of one's understanding of pain and injury that is taken into adulthood. How to best communicate to young children about their everyday pain experiences, in order to foster adaptive beliefs and behaviours, is unknown. METHODS: In this Delphi survey, we sought expert opinion on the key messages and strategies that parents/caregivers can consider when communicating with young children (aged 2-7 years) about 'everyday' pain that is most likely to promote recovery, resilience and adaptive pain behaviours. Eighteen experts participated including specialists in paediatric pain, trauma, child development and psychology; educators and parents. The survey included three rounds. RESULTS: Response rate was over 88%. Two hundred fifty-three items were raised; 187 reached 'consensus' (≥80% agreement amongst experts). Key messages that the experts agreed to be 'very important' were aligned with current evidence-based understandings of pain and injury. Strategies to communicate messages included parent/caregiver role modelling, responses to child pain and discussion during and/or after a painful experience. Other key themes included promoting emotional development, empowering children to use active coping strategies and resilience building. CONCLUSIONS: This diverse set of childhood, pain and parenting experts reached consensus on 187 items, yielding 12 key themes to consider when using everyday pain experiences to promote adaptive pain beliefs and behaviours in young children. SIGNIFICANCE: Parents and caregivers likely play a critical role in the development of children's fundamental beliefs and behaviours surrounding pain and injury that are carried into adulthood. Everyday pain experiences provide key opportunities to promote positive pain-related beliefs and behaviours. This Delphi survey identified key messages and strategies that caregivers can consider to optimize learning, encourage the development of adaptive pain behaviours and build resilience for future pain experiences.
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 | 0.029 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".