Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 168

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pain in infancy: Conceptual and methodological issues

Owens, Mark E.·1984·Pain

Abstract

The concept of pain in infancy was explored. It was suggested that our every day usage of the term pain be applied to infants. Essentially this suggestion is that we infer that an infant has a subjective experience that is unpleasant when there is evidence of tissue damage and the infant responds with signs of distress, such as crying, increased heart rate, facial expression consistent with distress or other signs. Conceptualizations of adult clinical pain and infant emotions were compared. It was proposed that our concept of infant pain should be multivariate and should include the ecological context in which pain occurs. In section 2 methodological issues were discussed. Ethical concerns for the protection of infant rights were voiced. Numerous opportunities for studying infant pain produced by necessary medical procedures were pointed out. A number of response systems which offer promise in understanding infant pain were reviewed with respect to their proven applicability to infant emotional and cognitive processes or to adult pain processes. This paper attempted to organize information which will be helpful to the researcher interested in infant pain or developmental processes in pain. From the preceding it should be obvious how remarkably little data we have which bears directly on the issue. The close association between the study of pain and the study of emotion has been shown. The study of emotional development, while ahead of the study of developmental aspects of pain, still lags far behind the study of cognitive development. Recently there has been a call for increased study of the development of emotion. The study of the development of pain might well proceed hand in hand. The present state of the field of infant pain is such that almost any data will add to our knowledge base. The complexity of the concept and the wide range of response systems would suggest that multidisciplinary research teams may develop some of the best research efforts. A multidisciplinary approach has been found to be essential in the treatment of chronic pain, for example. A listing of some of the types of professionals who would contribute would include: physicians, nurses, psychologists, biologists (including those trained in neurophysiology, ethology and endocrinology), sociologists and anthropologists. University medical centers seem an ideal environment for conducting such research, given the close proximity of various specialists and an available subject population.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0304-3959(84)90012-5

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 168

Metadata

Authors
Owens, M. E.
Venue
Pain
Published
1984-11
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
213-230
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2032201417
Cited by
168
References
1
FWCI
11.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pain in infancy: Conceptual and methodological issues. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0304-3959(84)90012-5
The paper
Owens, M. E. (1984). Pain in infancy: Conceptual and methodological issues. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(84)90012-5

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.