Role of Parenting Perceptions, Alexithymia, and Attachment in Chronic Pain: A Case–Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the relationship among alexithymia, attachment styles, and perceived parenting in individuals with chronic pain (CP).This case-control study included 63 patients with CP and 62 healthy individuals.Participants completed questionnaires on sociodemographic and clinical data, the Young Parenting Scale (YPS), Experiences in Close Relationships Inventory (ECRI), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI).Compared with controls, patients with CP reported statistically significantly higher TAS scores (median [IQR] = 50 [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] vs. 43 [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48], p<0.001), indicating greater difficulty in identifying and expressing emotions.They also showed significantly higher attachment anxiety levels (69 [55-86] vs. 60 [47-71], p=0.035).Regarding parenting perceptions, CP patients scored higher on several negative subscales: for mothers-Belittling/Criticizing, Permissive/Boundless, Pessimistic/Worried, and Restricted/Emotionally Inhibited; for fathers-Exploitative/Abusive, Permissive/Boundless, and Emotionally Depriving.These findings suggest that individuals with CP experience greater emotional dysregulation, higher attachment anxiety, and more negative early caregiving experiences, especially maternal criticism and paternal abuse or emotional deprivation.Early negative relational environments and difficulties in emotional regulation may contribute to the development or persistence of CP.Addressing these factors could enhance the effectiveness of psychological interventions.Further research is needed to investigate the underlying mechanisms in larger cohort studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".