Cited by 94Pediatric Pain Management TechniquesMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Treatment

What does it take? Comparing intensive rehabilitation to outpatient treatment for children with significant pain-related disability

Open access
Simons, Laura E., Sieberg, Christine B., Pielech, Melissa, Conroy, Caitlin, Logan, Deirdre E.·2013·Journal of Pediatric Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study compared outcomes between day hospital pain rehabilitation patients and patients engaged in outpatient multidisciplinary pain treatment. METHODS: This study included 100 children who presented for an initial tertiary care pain clinic evaluation. 50 patients enrolled in intensive day hospital pain rehabilitation and 50 patients pursued outpatient multidisciplinary treatment. Across 2 time points, children completed measures of functional disability, pain-related fear, and readiness to change and parents completed measures of pain-related fear and readiness to change. RESULTS: Across both treatment modalities, patients and parents reported improvements. Patients enrolled in intensive pain rehabilitation had significantly larger improvements in functional disability, pain-related fear, and readiness to change. Parents of day hospital patients reported larger declines in child pain-related fear and increased readiness to change compared with their outpatient counterparts. Discussion For patients with high levels of pain-related disability and distress, intensive pain rehabilitation provides rapid, dramatic improvements in functioning.

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 · 10.1093/jpepsy/jss109

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Under the primary power calculation assumptions (improvement 21.5 in GET Living and 5 in MPM, difference 16.5, SD 18.8), the trial will have 91% power with 58 participants (29 per arm) at end of study.

    “In our primary power calculation, we assumed that the improvement in adolescent pain-related fear avoidance at 3-months would be 21.5 in Get Living and 5 in MPM, a difference of 16.5, with a standard deviation for change of 18.8 derived from our prior work [65]. Under this scenario we will have power of 91% with 58 (29 in each arm) at end of study.”

    From Graded exposure treatment for adolescents with chronic pain (GET Living): Protocol for a randomized controlled trial enhanced with single case experimental design (2019) · cites this paper as [65]

    Table III (Within-group Analyses, p. 6) reports a reduction in fear-of-pain scores from 48.0 to 25.6 in the intensive-rehabilitation group, supporting the use of this prior work to inform an improvement assumption. It does not report an SD of 18.8 for change, and its comparison group’s reported means imply an improvement of 1.6 rather than 5. The 91% power calculation is the citing authors’ own calculation, not a result attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Patients enrolled in the intensive day rehabilitation program had significantly larger improvements in functional disability, pain-related fear, and willingness to adopt a self-management approach to treating pain compared to standard outpatient treatments.

    “While there were improvements noted across both treatment groups, patients enrolled in the intensive day rehabilitation program had significantly larger improvements in functional disability, pain-related fear, and willingness to adopt a self-management approach to treating pain [117].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Simons, L. E., Sieberg, C. B., Pielech, M., Conroy, C., & Logan, D. E.
Affiliations
Boston Children's Hospital (US)
Venue
Journal of Pediatric Psychology
Published
2012-10-26
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
213-223
ISSN
  • 0146-8693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-735X
OpenAlex
W2097768836
Cited by
94
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6
FWCI
5.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pediatric Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K23HD067202, HD067202)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
pediatric chronic pain, pain-related disability, intensive rehabilitation, fear of pain, readiness to change, functional disability, parent-reported outcomes, treatment comparison
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Ambulatory Care, Child, Day Care, Medical, Fear, Female, Persons with Disabilities, Disabled Persons, Humans, Male, Occupational Therapy, Outpatients, Pain, Severity of Illness Index, Treatment Outcome, Pain Management

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