4.5 Article

Children's Beliefs about Pain: An Exploratory Analysis

期刊

CHILDREN-BASEL
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/children8060452

关键词

functional abdominal pain; pain; interoception; children; child attitudes; pain thresholds

资金

  1. National Science Foundation/National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) [R33-MH-097959]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The majority of young children with FAP are optimistic about pain outcomes, generating various coping strategies and adjusting pain tolerance based on activities. However, a subset of children show pessimism towards pain, and some identified coping strategies may lead to excessive help seeking.
Functional abdominal pain (FAP) is one of the most common childhood medical complaints, associated with significant distress and impairment. Little is known about how children understand their pain. Do they attribute it to personal weakness? Do they perceive pain as having global impact, affecting a variety of activities? How do they cope with pain? We explored the pain beliefs of 5- to 9-year-old children with FAP using a novel Teddy Bear Interview task in which children answered questions about a Teddy bear's pain. Responses were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Results indicate that the majority of young children with FAP are optimistic about pain outcomes. Children generated many types of coping strategies for Teddy's pain and adjusted their calibration of Teddy's pain tolerance dependent on the activity being performed. Early warning signs also emerged: a subset of children were pessimistic about Teddy's pain, and several children identified coping strategies that, while developmentally appropriate, could lead to excessive help seeking if not intervened upon (e.g., physician consultation and shot). The Teddy Bear Interview allows children to externalize their pain, making it a useful tool to access cognitive pain constructs in younger children. Thus, these findings highlight the importance of early intervention for childhood FAP.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据