| Literature DB >> 24579047 |
Shelby L Langer1, Joan M Romano2, Lloyd Mancl3, Rona L Levy1.
Abstract
This study sought to model and test the role of parental catastrophizing in relationship to parent-reported child pain behavior and parental protective (solicitous) responses to child pain in a sample of children with Inflammatory Bowel Disease and their parents (n = 184 dyads). Parents completed measures designed to assess cognitions about and responses to their child's abdominal pain. They also rated their child's pain behavior. Mediation analyses were performed using regression-based techniques and bootstrapping. Results supported a model treating parent-reported child pain behavior as the predictor, parental catastrophizing as the mediator, and parental protective responses as the outcome. Parent-reported child pain behavior predicted parental protective responses and this association was mediated by parental catastrophizing about child pain: indirect effect (SE) = 2.08 (0.56); 95% CI = 1.09, 3.30. The proportion of the total effect mediated was 68%. Findings suggest that interventions designed to modify maladaptive parental responses to children's pain behaviors should assess, as well as target, parental catastrophizing cognitions about their child's pain.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24579047 PMCID: PMC3918362 DOI: 10.1155/2014/751097
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pain Res Treat ISSN: 2090-1542
Figure 1Conceptual model treating parental catastrophizing as a mediator.
Figure 2Conceptual model treating parental catastrophizing as a predictor.
Sample characteristics (n = 184 dyads).
| Characteristic | Parent | Child |
|---|---|---|
| Age, M (SD) | 44.37 (6.85) | 13.72 (2.72) |
| Age, range | 27–67 | 8–18 |
| Gender, | 166 (90.2) | 87 (47.3) |
| Ethnicity, | 3 (1.6) | 8 (4.3) |
| Race, | 171 (92.9) | 162 (88.0) |
| Education, | 90 (48.9) | — |
| Employment status, | 81 (44.0) | — |
| Marital status, | 145 (78.8) | — |
| Disease, | ||
| Crohn's Disease | — | 126 (68.5) |
| Ulcerative colitis | — | 58 (31.5) |
| Time since diagnosis in years, M (SD) | — | 2.30 (2.41) |
Correlations among study variables and descriptive statistics (n = 184).
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | M (SD) | Scale | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Child age | 1.00 | .02 | .02 | −.11 | -.01 | −.08 | 13.72 (2.72) | NA |
| (2) Child gender (M 1, F 2) | 1.00 | −.02 | .18* | .00 | −.01 | NA | NA | |
| (3) Child current pain | 1.00 | .04 | .02 | .04 | 0.51 (1.46) | 0–10 | ||
| (4) Parent-reported child pain behavior | 1.00 | .42** | .24** | 1.53 (0.66) | 0–4 | |||
| (5) Parental catastrophizing | 1.00 | .40** | 20.55 (10.77) | 0–52 | ||||
| (6) Parental protective responses | 1.00 | 22.41 (8.65) | 0–52 |
Note: *P < .05 and **P < .01.
Results of mediation analyses treating parent-reported child pain behavior (PRCPB) as the predictor, parental catastrophizing (CAT) as the mediator, and protective responses as the outcome (n = 184).
| Path | Effect | Estimate (SE) |
| 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| c | Effect of PRCPB on protect | 3.04 (0.97) | 0.002 | — |
| a | Effect of PRCPB on parent CAT | 7.07 (1.12) | <0.001 | — |
| b | Effect of parent CAT on protect | 0.32 (0.05) | <0.001 | — |
| a × b | Indirect effect | 2.08 (0.56) | — | 1.09, 3.30 |
| c′ | Direct effect | 0.96 (1.01) | 0.342 |
Note: confidence intervals excluding zero indicate statistical significance. The ratio of the indirect effect (a × b) to the total effect (c) or the proportion of the total effect mediated was 0.68.
Results of mediation analyses treating parental catastrophizing (CAT) as the predictor, parent-reported child pain behavior (PRCPB) as the mediator, and protective responses as the outcome (n = 184).
| Path | Effect | Estimate (SE) |
| 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| c | Effect of CAT on protect | 0.32 (0.05) | <0.001 | — |
| a | Effect of CAT on PRCPB | 0.03 (0.004) | <0.001 | — |
| b | Effect of PRCPB on protect | 3.04 (0.97) | 0.002 | — |
| a × b | Indirect effect | 0.02 (0.03) | — | –0.03, 0.07 |
| c′ | Direct effect | 0.29 (0.06) | <0.001 | — |
Note: confidence intervals excluding zero indicate statistical significance. The proportion of the indirect effect (a × b) to the total effect (c) or the proportion of the total effect mediated was 0.08 (0.0245/0.3184).