Differences Between Mothers' and Fathers' Perception of Their Adolescents' Pain Before and After Parent Training Through The Comfort Ability Pain Management Program.

C. Donado, Taylor B Turrisi, Tessa Wihak, Rachael Coakley
{"title":"Differences Between Mothers' and Fathers' Perception of Their Adolescents' Pain Before and After Parent Training Through The Comfort Ability Pain Management Program.","authors":"C. Donado, Taylor B Turrisi, Tessa Wihak, Rachael Coakley","doi":"10.1097/DBP.0000000000000738","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nTo evaluate differences in how mothers and fathers perceive and respond to their adolescents' chronic pain before and after The Comfort Ability Program (CAP), a 1-day cognitive-behavioral intervention, and to compare outcomes between mother-father dyads and mothers who attended the intervention alone.\n\n\nMETHODS\nParents completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and Helping for Health Inventory (HHI) at baseline (preintervention) and at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after intervention. Confirmatory factor analyses evaluated construct validity and invariances of the scales. Paired t tests compared scores between mothers and fathers. Unpaired t tests compared mother-father dyads (n = 33) and mothers who attended the intervention alone (n = 73).\n\n\nRESULTS\nPCS baseline showed significant construct instability between maternal and paternal interpretations. However, 1 week after intervention, construct stability improved between parents. On the PCS and HHI, in which lower scores represent more adaptive parenting behaviors, fathers scored significantly lower than mothers at baseline (PCS: 22.6 [7.7] vs 28.0 [11.4], p value = 0.033; HHI: 16.0 [8.1] vs 20.6 [9.6], p value = 0.029). At 3 months after intervention, PCS scores for both mothers and fathers significantly decreased from baseline (mothers: p value = 0.009; fathers: p value = 0.052) and converged (mothers: 18.6 [11.2] vs fathers: 18.3 [13.2]; p value = 0.786). Mother and father HHI scores were significantly lower at 3 months than baseline (mothers: 13.2 [9.5], p value = 0.005; fathers: 15.0 [12.7], p value = 0.017), although improvement of construct stability between parents was less evident.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nFindings suggest that mothers and fathers may differentially perceive and respond to their adolescents' pain and that CAP parent-training intervention may help align their thinking. The results further demonstrate that both parents make adaptive changes after intervention, reinforcing the value of including both parents in pediatric treatment for chronic pain.","PeriodicalId":15655,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000738","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To evaluate differences in how mothers and fathers perceive and respond to their adolescents' chronic pain before and after The Comfort Ability Program (CAP), a 1-day cognitive-behavioral intervention, and to compare outcomes between mother-father dyads and mothers who attended the intervention alone. METHODS Parents completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and Helping for Health Inventory (HHI) at baseline (preintervention) and at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after intervention. Confirmatory factor analyses evaluated construct validity and invariances of the scales. Paired t tests compared scores between mothers and fathers. Unpaired t tests compared mother-father dyads (n = 33) and mothers who attended the intervention alone (n = 73). RESULTS PCS baseline showed significant construct instability between maternal and paternal interpretations. However, 1 week after intervention, construct stability improved between parents. On the PCS and HHI, in which lower scores represent more adaptive parenting behaviors, fathers scored significantly lower than mothers at baseline (PCS: 22.6 [7.7] vs 28.0 [11.4], p value = 0.033; HHI: 16.0 [8.1] vs 20.6 [9.6], p value = 0.029). At 3 months after intervention, PCS scores for both mothers and fathers significantly decreased from baseline (mothers: p value = 0.009; fathers: p value = 0.052) and converged (mothers: 18.6 [11.2] vs fathers: 18.3 [13.2]; p value = 0.786). Mother and father HHI scores were significantly lower at 3 months than baseline (mothers: 13.2 [9.5], p value = 0.005; fathers: 15.0 [12.7], p value = 0.017), although improvement of construct stability between parents was less evident. CONCLUSION Findings suggest that mothers and fathers may differentially perceive and respond to their adolescents' pain and that CAP parent-training intervention may help align their thinking. The results further demonstrate that both parents make adaptive changes after intervention, reinforcing the value of including both parents in pediatric treatment for chronic pain.
父母训练前后父母对青少年疼痛感知的差异
目的评价为期1天的“舒适能力计划”(CAP)认知行为干预前后,父母对青少年慢性疼痛的感知和反应差异,并比较父母双干预组和母亲单独干预组的结果。方法家长分别在干预前、干预后1周、1个月和3个月完成疼痛灾难化量表(PCS)和健康帮助量表(HHI)。验证性因子分析评估了量表的结构效度和不变性。配对测试比较了母亲和父亲之间的得分。非配对t检验比较了母亲-父亲双体组(n = 33)和单独参加干预的母亲(n = 73)。结果spcs基线在母亲和父亲的解释之间存在显著的结构不稳定性。干预后1周,父母间的构建稳定性有所改善。在PCS和HHI上,父亲的得分显著低于母亲(PCS: 22.6[7.7]比28.0 [11.4],p值= 0.033;HHI: 16.0 [8.1] vs 20.6 [9.6], p值= 0.029)。干预后3个月,父亲和母亲的PCS评分均较基线显著下降(母亲:p值= 0.009;父亲:p值= 0.052)和趋同(母亲:18.6 [11.2]vs父亲:18.3 [13.2];P值= 0.786)。母亲和父亲在3个月时的HHI评分显著低于基线(母亲:13.2 [9.5],p值= 0.005;父亲:15.0 [12.7],p值= 0.017),但父母之间构建稳定性的改善不太明显。结论父母对青少年痛苦的感知和反应存在差异,CAP亲子训练干预有助于调整父母的思维方式。研究结果进一步表明,父母双方在干预后都做出了适应性改变,这加强了将父母双方纳入儿童慢性疼痛治疗的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信