A systematic review of self and observer assessment of pain and related functioning in youth with brain-based developmental disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Pain experiences of youth with brain-based developmental disabilities are often overlooked and/or misinterpreted, increasing the risk for poor or inadequate pain assessment and management. Ample measures exist to assess acute and chronic pain, yet their utility and frequency of use in youth with brain-based developmental disabilities is unclear and available measures do not have strong measurement properties for this diverse group. This systematic review identified the scope of self-reported and observer-reported pain assessment in studies of youth (aged 3-24 years) with brain-based developmental disabilities (phase 1) and summarized other measures of pain-related functioning for acute and chronic pain (ie, physical, emotional, social, sleep, and quality of life, within the subset of quantitative studies focused primarily on pain, phase 2). A comprehensive search for English-language studies was conducted in August 2022 in Web of Science, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, and APA PsychINFO (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021237444). A total of 17,029 unique records were screened. Of the 707 articles included in phase 1, most assessed chronic pain (n = 314; 62.0%) and primarily used observer-report (n = 155; 31%) over self-report (n = 67; 13%). Of the 137 articles included in phase 2, other outcomes assessed alongside pain intensity included motor ability (16.8%), adaptive functioning (11%), quality of life (8%), pain interference (6.6%), mental health (5.8%), and communication ability (2.9%). Cerebral palsy was the most common population in both phase 1 (n = 343; 48.5%) and phase 2 (n = 83; 59.7%). This review provides a foundational understanding of pain assessment in brain-based developmental disabilities and highlights continued inequities in holistic pain assessment 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 | 0.018 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".