“My gut feeling is…”: An Ethnographic Study Exploring Interprofessional Communication About Children and Adolescents With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain in Paediatric Rheumatology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interprofessional communication about inflammatory and non-inflammatory musculoskeletal conditions is an important component of assessment and management in paediatric rheumatology. Chronic pain is a feature of some of these conditions which likely influences the extent and type of communication about pain. Research investigating interprofessional communication about paediatric pain is limited but has found that communication is inclusive of the biopsychosocial context of children/adolescents as well as their families. The aim of this ethnographic study was to explore interprofessional communication about children and adolescents with chronic musculoskeletal pain in paediatric rheumatology. We observed forty-five healthcare professionals recruited from 3 UK paediatric rheumatology teams during thirty multi-disciplinary team meetings. Contemporaneous field notes created during observations were analysed using grounded theory procedures. Core processes identified in interprofessional communication involved describing, making sense of, and managing children/adolescents with pain and their families. Topic areas discussed within these core processes included healthcare professional perceptions about children's and parents' personality characteristics, as well as healthcare professionals' familiarity with families. Underlying diagnoses and possible attributions of pain aetiology were also discussed. Interprofessional narratives included consideration of the potential anxieties and uncertainties about pain within families. Healthcare professionals communicated about strategies for managing expectations about pain. These findings characterise the nuances in interprofessional communication about pain and can be used to inform future work aimed at understanding and optimising the impact of interprofessional communication on clinical decisions and pain outcomes. PERSPECTIVE: This study characterises the processes (series of actions), the function (purpose) and the content (topic areas) of interprofessional communication about paediatric pain in rheumatology settings. These findings should be used to inform interventions targeting both the appropriateness and effectiveness of this communication.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".