Objectives: Valid and efficient assessment of patient-reported outcomes remains a priority to guide pain treatment and research. PROMIS pediatric self-report and parent proxy measures offer feasible and rigorous evaluation of functioning in children with chronic conditions, including pain. A key challenge is determining the usefulness of multisource information from children and caregivers for understanding pain and function. Our primary aim examined child-caregiver agreement across child functioning domains. Our secondary aim examined child and caregiver factors associated with the child-caregiver agreement. Materials and Methods: A sample of 806 children with chronic pain (M age=14.50 y; 72% female individuals) and a caregiver (M age=45.82 y; 85% mothers) completed PROMIS pediatric self-report and parent proxy measures of anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain interference, and mobility before intake in an interdisciplinary outpatient pediatric chronic pain program. Results: The agreement was poor to good depending on the evaluation method (effect size, intraclass correlation, and clinical significance interpretation). Caregivers generally reported worse child symptoms across domains compared with child self-report. The greatest discrepancy was observed for child anxiety, pain interference, and peer relations, with the greatest agreement for child mobility. The greater caregiver-child discrepancy was found for younger children, girls, with a higher child or caregiver pain catastrophizing, and poorer caregiver physical or mental health. Discussion: Findings are discussed within the interpersonal context of pain and indicate the relevance of both child and caregiver perspectives to personalize chronic pain assessment and treatment. Findings can be used by clinicians and researchers to guide whether and how to integrate multi-informant reports about child chronic pain functioning.

No abstract

Purpose To determine whether general healthcare providers and adult psychiatrists recognized binge eating disorder (BED) symptoms and features. The aims were to examine how they delineated the core criteria of BED—eating a large amount of food and sense of loss of control over eating—and how their evaluations compared to ratings by BED experts. Design This is a cross‐sectional study of a nationwide U.S. sample of healthcare providers and a convenience sample of BED experts. Methods Providers were mailed surveys that asked respondents about their perceptions of a large amount of food and whether they thought case vignettes met thresholds for loss of control. Participants were also asked to select BED diagnostic criteria from a symptom list. Results were analyzed using one‐way analyses of variance with post‐hoc comparisons and chi‐squared tests. Findings The survey was completed by 405 healthcare providers (response rate of 28.4%). Ratings of a large amount of food did not differ between BED experts and general healthcare providers (p = .10) or psychiatrists (p = .90). Provider groups did not differ significantly on whether five of the six vignettes met thresholds for loss of control (p > .05). Of the respondents, 93.0% of general healthcare providers and 88.6% of psychiatrists could not correctly identify the diagnostic criteria for BED. Conclusions Across provider groups, demarcation of a large amount of food and loss of control over eating were relatively consistent. However, general healthcare providers and psychiatrists were not able to correctly identify BED symptoms. Clinical Relevance Training and education are greatly needed to improve knowledge of the diagnostic criteria for BED.

No abstract

No abstract