Attachment style and children and young people with chronic dermatological conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dermatological conditions are common in childhood and, in their more severe forms, can cause pain, disability and social marginalisation. Despite attachment being a known factor contributing to psychological and physiological development in childhood and several adult studies showing associations between attachment and dermatology outcomes (Tomas-Aragones, 2018), attachment in young dermatology patients has not been investigated. OBJECTIVES: This study examined if (1) 8-16-year-olds with chronic dermatological conditions were more likely to show attachment insecurity than general population peers; (2) attachment style was linked to psychological functioning; and (3) facial involvement was associated with attachment insecurity. METHOD: One hundred and twenty-two 8-16-year-olds attending a specialist paediatric dermatological service were compared on the Child Attachment Interview (CAI) to general population data. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) was used to measure psychosocial functioning. RESULTS: [1] = 4.76, p < .05). The secure group self-reported significantly better psychological functioning on all indices compared with the insecure group (Total Difficulties: F[1,89] = 15.30, p < .001). There were no significant differences between secure and insecure groups on parent-reported psychological measures (Total Difficulties: F[1,94] = 0.67, p = .42). Children with facial involvement were not significantly more likely to be insecurely attached. CONCLUSIONS: Increased risk of attachment insecurity, particularly in the anxious pre-occupied category, as well as an association between attachment and psychosocial functioning resonated with adult studies suggesting that further research about the role of attachment with young dermatology patients is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".