Parent Anxiety, Depression, Protective Responses, and Parenting Stress in the Context of Parent and Child Chronic Pain: A Daily Diary Study of Parent Variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 14.26; 71.1% female) and one of their parents (89.5% mothers; n = 38 or 50.0% endorsing chronic pain). Parents and youth completed self-report questionnaires and 7 days of diaries. Parent variability was calculated to reflect the frequency and size of day-to-day changes. Multilevel models revealed that parents with (vs without) chronic pain were significantly more variable in their parenting stress, but not in their anxiety, mood, or protective responses. Contrary to hypotheses, parent variability was not significantly related to youth daily pain intensity or interference and parent chronic pain did not moderate any associations. Instead, mean levels of parent anxiety, protective responses, and parenting stress across the week significantly predicted youth daily pain interference. Findings suggest that while variability was observed among parents (with and without chronic pain) of youth with chronic pain, it did not significantly predict youth's daily pain-related functioning. Further research is needed to confirm these initial findings. PERSPECTIVE: Parents with chronic pain have expressed concerns that the variable nature of their pain negatively impacts their children. Our results found that parents (with and without chronic pain) were variable in their anxiety, mood, protective responses, and parenting stress, but this variability did not significantly predict youth's chronic pain-related functioning.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".