The Role of Benefit Finding in the Relationship Between Pain and Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms in Youth With Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Chronic pain and posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) co-occur in youth at high rates. Current conceptual models of mutual maintenance do not identify specific youth resilience factors, such as benefit finding in this co-occurrence. Benefit finding is the process of perceiving positive benefits as the results of experiencing adversity. It has been viewed as a potential mitigator for illness symptoms; however, only minimal cross-sectional research has been conducted and none has longitudinally examined the possible buffering effect of benefit finding in the co-occurrence of chronic pain and PTSS in youth. This longitudinal investigation examined whether benefit finding changes over time, influences pain outcomes and moderates the relationship between PTSS and chronic pain in a clinical sample of youth with chronic pain. METHODS: Youth ( N =105, Female = 78.1%) with chronic pain between the ages of 7-17 years ( M = 13.70; SD = 2.47) participated. Participants completed measures at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months to assess pain intensity and interference, PTSS, and benefit finding. RESULTS: Benefit finding did not significantly change over time. Cross-sectionally, benefit finding at 3 months significantly explained the variance in pain interference and intensity at 3 months. Benefit finding at 3 months did not significantly moderate the relationship between baseline PTSS and pain interference or intensity at 6 months. DISCUSSION: These findings replicate previous research that found positive cross-sectional associations between PTSS and chronic pain, and between benefit finding and worse pain intensity and interference. Further research on resilience in pediatric chronic pain is needed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".