A Parent-Targeted Group Intervention for Pediatric Pain Delivered In-Person or Virtually
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Parents play integral roles in their youth's chronic pain and can experience elevated distress related to caregiving. This study examined a cognitive-behavior therapy-based parent-targeted group intervention, including understudied/novel resilience/risk (eg, distress, parenting self-regulation), and compared the effect of in-person versus virtual delivery format. HYPOTHESES: (1) Adequate feasibility and acceptability (enrolment>33%, attendance >60%, attrition <25%, satisfaction ratings >90%), with higher indicators of feasibility in the virtual groups; (2) Significant improvements in parent psychological flexibility, protectiveness, distress, and parenting self-regulation at posttreatment that were maintained at follow-up, with no difference between delivery type. METHODS: Parents were enroled from an outpatient pediatric chronic pain clinic and participated in the group intervention in-person or virtually; questionnaires were completed at baseline, posttreatment, and 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Enrolment (55% in-person, 65% virtual) and attendance (86% in-person, 93% virtual) were higher, and attrition was lower than expected (4% in-person, 7% virtual). Satisfaction was high (4.95/5 in-person, 4.85/5 virtual); on written feedback, parents enjoyed connecting with other parents (27/56, 48%) the most. The least preferred were the virtual format (5/36, 14%) and timing of the group (6/52, 12%). There were no differences between delivery formats in feasibility/acceptability. The intervention significantly improved parents' psychological flexibility, protectiveness, distress, and parenting self-regulation over time. A small group difference favored the in-person format for psychological flexibility, and an interaction effect for parenting self-regulation was found. DISCUSSION: This standalone parent-targeted group intervention had positive effects on parent outcomes delivered either in-person or virtually.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".