4.5 Article

Expressed Beliefs about the Cause of Pain in a Pediatric Population: A Qualitative Study

期刊

CHILDREN-BASEL
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/children10061007

关键词

pediatric pain; pain science education; pain perception; child

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to explore children and adolescents' beliefs about the cause of their pain, and compare differences in beliefs based on age and the persistence of pain. The participants provided a range of explanations for the cause of their pain, with pathologies and injuries being the most common (45.95%), followed by ergonomic issues (22.60%) and psychological issues (15.95%).
(1) Background: The aims of this study are to explore what beliefs children and adolescents manifest about the cause of the pain they describe, to compare whether there are differences between beliefs by age and the persistence of pain, and to relate the explanations of the cause of pain with current scientific evidence. (2) Methods: a cross-sectional qualitative study was used. The primary endpoint of the study was obtaining explanations of the cause of pain recorded by means of an open-ended question. The participants were school-age children attending a charted school in the province of Barcelona. (3) Results: The children and adolescents proposed a diverse range of explanations for the cause of pain that they reported in their responses. The most frequent explanation for the cause of pain were pathologies and injuries (45.95%), ergonomic issues (22.60%) and psychological issues (15.95%). (4) Conclusions: There is a lot of variety in the explanations that young people give about the cause of their pain in schoolchildren aged between 10 and 16 years old. There exists a high prevalence of explanations non-associated with tissue damage (ENAD) concerning the causes of pain described. It is necessary that future health prevention programs dedicated to early ages consider which beliefs about the cause of pain are the most frequent in the pediatric population.

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