MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408597918 · doi:10.2147/jpr.s503542

Non-Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Psychological Interventions May Not Make the Difference in Children and Adolescents With Chronic Pain

2025· article· en· W4408597918 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren Perlman, Naomi Malka, Oliver P. Terry, Alex Nguyen, Lucas Guimarães Ferreira Fonseca, Juan I Ingelmo, Pablo Ingelmo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pain Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Children's HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
FundersChildren's Hospital Foundation
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionCognitive behavioral therapyChronic painCognitionClinical psychologyPsychotherapistPhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aim: Chronic pain in pediatric populations presents a multifaceted challenge with biopsychosocial impact, requiring a multidisciplinary approach including psychological treatment. At our interdisciplinary pain center, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic-related disruptions led to the cessation of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and other psychological interventions during the pandemic. The aim of this retrospective cohort study with secondary retrospective matched case-control analysis was to evaluate the impact of interruption of non-CBT psychological interventions, namely psychoanalysis and psychodynamic psychotherapy, on children and adolescents with chronic pain conditions during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Materials and Methods: We included pediatric patients with primary and secondary chronic pain conditions evaluated by our team during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We excluded patients who did not receive psychological intervention when available, those with incomplete data on initial evaluation or follow-up, and those who received outside psychiatric care or individual or group CBT. The primary outcome was a Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) score of 6-7. Secondary outcome measures were pain intensity, use of pain medication, sleep, physical function, school attendance, the incidence of suicidality, and the reason for end of treatment. Results: The study included 146 patients, 77 who received non-CBT psychological interventions and 69 who did not receive any psychological interventions. We found no meaningful difference between the use of non-CBT psychological intervention and no treatment in the incidence of PGIC 6-7 points, pain intensity, school attendance, physical function, suicidality, and cause of end of treatment. Patients not receiving any psychological interventions were more likely to have normalized sleep at the end of treatment. Conclusion: Non-CBT psychological interventions, namely psychoanalysis and psychodynamic psychotherapy, were not associated with meaningful benefits for children and adolescents with chronic pain during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients who did not receive psychological interventions reported normalization of their sleep at the end of treatment compared to those who participated in non-CBT interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pain ResearchSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207