Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-Based Intervention for Parents Living With Chronic Pain: Feasibility and Acceptability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Chronic pain often clusters in families with up to 50% of parents of youth with chronic pain having chronic pain themselves. Interventions for pediatric chronic pain often involve parents, yet parental chronic pain and stress are rarely addressed. Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT)-based interventions are efficacious for adult chronic pain, making it a potentially well-suited intervention for parents of youth with chronic pain who also have pain and/or mental health issues. In collaboration with patient partners, we developed and tested feasibility and acceptability of a pilot ACT-based virtual intervention focused on parental chronic pain and mental health. Method: Parents of youth with chronic pain who had chronic pain participated in four 1.5-hr weekly sessions delivered virtually. Parents completed pre- and posttreatment measures of pain and mental health symptoms. Feasibility was assessed using session attendance. Parents rated intervention acceptability and provided feedback at the end of the study. Results: Six parents (four mothers, M age = 45.5 years) attended at least three out of four sessions. Parents rated the intervention to be acceptable ( M = 56.7/70). Parents highlighted the sense of community and changes they observed in themselves. Conclusions: The brief virtual ACT-based intervention for parents living with chronic pain was feasible and acceptable. Future clinical trials are warranted to assess the intervention efficacy to improve parental and youth outcomes. Implications for Impact Statement Interventions for pediatric chronic pain often involve parents, yet parental chronic pain and stress are rarely addressed. We developed a brief virtual acceptance and commitment therapy-based intervention for parents of youth with chronic pain who have pain themselves. The intervention was feasible and acceptable.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".