Any type of paediatric chronic pain Signs and Symptoms Other chronic pain
Conditions
Interventions
Assessments are completed independently by children and parents at baseline before randomization, upon completion of the 9-week intervention and at a three-month follow-up period. Varying block alloca
Sponsors
National University of Ireland Galway
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: 1. Aged age 5 to 12 years 2. Experienced chronic or recurrent non-malignant pain present for a period of 3 months or more which met the criteria for a diagnosis of chronic or recurrent pain as defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP, 1986) 3. Experienced pain at least once per week 4. Experienced pain interference in at least one area of daily functioning as per parent report 5. Could read and write English 6. Had regular access to a computer with an Internet connection 7. Agreed not to engage in psychological treatment for chronic pain management during the active phase of participation
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: 1. The child had a serious psychiatric illness 2. The child had pain associated with a chronic medical condition (e.g. cancer) 3. The child had a developmental disability which would prevent them understanding the research materials 4. The parent or child was non-English speaking 5. The family did not have regular access to the Internet on a computer or portable device e.g. tablet or laptop computer
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Feasibility and clinical outcome assessments were carried out at baseline (T1), at post-treatment (T2, 9-11 weeks) and at three-month follow-up (T3). The primary feasibility outcome measures for this study are: 1. Recruitment measured by the percentage of eligible participants who progressed from initial enquiry to treatment allocation and enrolment. 2. Retention to follow-up measured by the completeness of online data collection in each arm at post-intervention and 3- month follow-up. This will be presented as a percentage of the participants randomised. 3. Treatment compliance measured at 9-11 weeks post-randomisation by means of objective system usage data (‘participant access data’). Website use and treatment engagement were measured in the following ways: 3.1. The number of sessions completed (0-18 total) . treatment compliance) 3.2. The number of times users logged in (‘unique logins’) 3.3. The average length of time users remained logged in 3.4. The number of times individual pages were viewed 3.5. The number of interactive strategies completed 3.6. The number of participants who submitted weekly homework 3.7. The most and least accessed website components based on the module page accessed and completion rates 4. Treatment satisfaction and acceptability measured using the Internet Evaluation and Utility Questionnaire (Thorndike et al., 2008). This measure was used at T2 / post-intervention only. 5. Website satisfaction measured using six purposely constructed questions based on Ritterband’s model for intervention development (Ritterband et al., 2009). This measure was used at T2 / post-intervention only. 6. Treatment expectancies: post-randomisation, children and parents completed a measure of treatment expectancies which comprised of a | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Feasibility and clinical outcome assessments were carried out at baseline (T1), at post-treatment (T2, 9-11 weeks) and at three-month follow-up (T3). 1. Mood assessed by children and parents using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory – psychological health subscale-(PedsQL™ 4.0; Varni, 1998). This measure was used at each point of assessment for the intervention group and at baseline and post-intervention for the control group. 2. Child health-related quality of life assessed using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory -(PedsQL™ 4.0; Varni, 1998). This measure was used at each point of assessment for the intervention group and at baseline and post-intervention for the control group. 3. Child use of strategies to cope with pain measured using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory – Coping Skills Inventory (PedQL-CSI; Varni, 1996). This measure was used at each point of assessment for the intervention group and at baseline and post-intervention for the control group. 4. Level of catastrophizing assessed with the Pain Catastrophising Scale-Child and Parent versions (PCS-C&P; Crombez et al., 2003). This measure was used at each point of assessment for the intervention group and at baseline and post-intervention for the control group. 5. Pain-related self-efficacy assessed using the Self-efficacy for Functioning Despite Pain Scale – Child and Parent report (Bursch et al., 2006). This measure was used at each point of assessment for the intervention group and at baseline and post-intervention for the control group. Levels of parental protective behaviour assessed using the Adult Response to Children’s Symptoms–Protect Subscale- child and parent versions (Walker, Ley & Whitehead, 2006). This measure was used at each point of assessment for the intervention group and at baseline and post-intervention for the control group. 6. Socio-demographic characte | — |
Countries
Canada, Ireland, United Kingdom, United States of America
Contacts
Public ContactAngeline Traynor
Outcome results
None listed