Learning, Hope, and Empowerment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Limited research has investigated parent-targeted interventions in pediatric chronic pain, though these interventions may be an important part of family-centered care. Further, parent perspectives and feedback regarding these interventions are scant in the literature, even though they are crucial for developing, refining, and optimizing treatment options. This study aimed to understand how parents experience and perceive their participation in a cognitive-behavioral therapy-based, parent-targeted group intervention that was delivered either in-person or virtually, with a focus on the treatment components they found most important. METHODS: Data from semistructured focus groups/interviews within 1week post-treatment with 32 parents (n=11 in-person, n=21 virtual) were analyzed using an inductive reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three overarching themes were generated from the thematic analysis: building a foundation of knowledge, finding normalization and hope through connection and lived experiences, and sharing collective responsibility for pain management. DISCUSSION: Parents perceived a range of benefits from participating in a cognitive-behavioral therapy-based, parent-targeted group intervention, both on themselves and for their youth. Overall, parent perceptions across in-person and virtual intervention delivery were consistent, except for a drawback of virtual participation for developing a deeper social connection among parents. Thus, a relatively brief parent-targeted group intervention was perceived to be a positive experience for parents, though considerations for adapting to virtual delivery and facilitating social connection among parents seem to be important.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".