Characteristics of the Pediatric Chronic Pain Service in a Developing Country: A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to describe the need for multidisciplinary management in a pediatric chronic pain service, characteristics of pediatric patients, types of pain management, and outcomes in a tertiary care university hospital in Thailand. Methods: This retrospective study included pediatric patients aged between 0 and 17 years old receiving chronic pain services, both inpatient and outpatient, between August 2021 and December 2023. Demographic data, primary medical diagnosis, pain diagnosis, pain characteristics, psychological diagnosis, multidisciplinary management, and patient outcomes were collected. Pain-related diagnoses were then coded into the 11 th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) of the World Health Organization. Results: There were 99 patients included in the study. Mean (SD) age of the patients was 11.5 (4.8) years old. Most patients were male sex (60.6%). The most common pain diagnoses were chronic cancer-related pain (43.4%) and chronic neuropathic pain (21.2%). For multidisciplinary management, 46 (46.5%) patients were sent for psychiatric consultation (95% CI 37.0– 56.2), which turned out to be 36 (36.4%) patients who had mental health disorders (95% CI 27.6– 46.2). Fifty-six (56.6%) patients had rehabilitation (95% CI 46.7– 65.9). Twenty (20.2%) patients required both psychiatric and rehabilitation treatments. Gabapentinoids were used in 68 (68.7%) patients. Strong opioids via oral route were reported in 59 (59.6%) patients. Overall, 54 (54.5%) patients were able to be discharged from the service, while 27 (27.3%) patients died. Conclusion: A significant proportion of children with chronic pain required psychiatric and rehabilitation management. Keywords: chronic pain, child, pain management, cancer pain, mental health
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".