Perceptions of Adolescents With Chronic Pain About Peer Support: Reflexive Thematic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Social challenges are a common experience for adolescents with chronic pain. Group peer support for these adolescents could be a promising intervention; however, no studies have focused exclusively on the peer support needs of this population. The present study addressed this gap in the literature. METHODS: Adolescents with chronic pain between 12 and 17 years of age completed a virtual interview and demographics questionnaire. Interviews were analyzed using inductive reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen adolescents (Mage: 15.21 years; 9 females; 3 males, 1 nonbinary, 1 gender questioning) with chronic pain participated. Three themes were generated: "Being Misunderstood," "They Would Understand Me," and "Moving Forward Together in Our Pain Journeys." Adolescents with chronic pain feel misunderstood and under supported by their peers without pain leading to feeling "othered" by having to explain their pain, yet not feeling free to talk about their pain with friends. Adolescents with chronic pain expressed that peer support would provide the forms of social support they are missing amongst their friends without pain as well as companionship and a sense of belonging due to shared knowledge and experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents with chronic pain desire peer support from others like themselves, highlighting the challenges in their everyday friendships as the impetus for this support, as well as their anticipated short- and long-term benefits, including learning from their peers and developing new friendships. Findings indicate that adolescents with chronic pain may benefit from group peer support. Findings will inform the development of a peer support intervention for 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 | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".