Pain that recurs or persists is unfortunately a common experience for children. One of the unique considerations in pediatric chronic pain management is the bidirectional influences of children’s pain experiences and parental and family factors. In this review we present a developmental perspective on understanding pediatric chronic pain and disability, highlighting factors relevant from infancy to adolescence, and family and parent influences. Preliminary evidence indicates that developmental processes are influenced and may also shape the pediatric pain experience. Parent emotions, behaviors, and health also play a role in children’s pain experiences, where overly protective parent behaviors, increased distress, and history of chronic pain are important parent level influences. Research on family level influences has revealed that families of children with chronic pain have poorer family functioning (e.g., more conflict, less cohesion) than families of healthy children. Several important gaps exist in this research, such as in understanding basic developmental processes in children with chronic pain and how they influence children’s perception of and responses to pain. Also, there is a lack of longitudinal data on family relationships and individual adjustment to allow for understanding of whether changes occur in parenting over the course of the child’s chronic pain experience. Although parent interventions have been successfully incorporated into many cognitive-behavioral treatments for children with chronic pain conditions, little guidance exists for adapting intervention strategies to be developmentally appropriate. Additional research is needed to examine whether parent interventions are effective at different developmental stages and the best way to incorporate developmental goals into treatment.

Strategies that can be used to limit attrition include tailoring recruitment to the study population, providing personalized feedback, maintaining consistent study procedures, providing incentives, and using intensive tracking measures. There is a need for standardized definitions and reporting of attrition rates in randomized cognitive behavioral intervention studies.

These results are consistent with a model in which good-quality sleep acts as a biobehavioral resource that minimizes allostatic load.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a self-guided CD-ROM program (“Headstrong”) containing cognitive-behavioral self-management strategies versus an educational CD-ROM program for treating headaches, headache-related disability, and quality of life.MethodsParticipants were 35 children ages 7–12 years with migraine recruited from one university medical center and two children’s hospital headache clinics. Participants were randomly assigned to complete the Headstrong or educational control CD-ROM program over a 4-week period. Data on headache frequency, duration, and severity, migraine-related disability, and quality of life (QOL) were obtained at baseline, post-intervention, and 3-months post-intervention.ResultsAt post-intervention, Headstrong resulted in lower severity (on a 10-point scale) than the control group by child report (5.06 ± 1.50 SD vs. 6.25 ± 1.92 SD, p = 0.03, ES = 0.7). At 3-months post-intervention, parents reported less migraine-related disability (on the PedMIDAS) in the Headstrong group compared to the control group (1.36 ± 2.06 SD vs. 5.18 ± 6.40 SD; p = 0.04, ES = 0.8). There were no other group differences at post treatment or at 3-months post-intervention.ConclusionsWhen compared to an educational control, Headstrong resulted in lower pain severity at post-treatment and less migraine-related disability at 3-months post-intervention, by child and parent report respectively. Headache frequency and quality of life did not change more for Headstrong versus control. Additional research is needed on the Headstrong Program to increase its efficacy and to test it with a larger sample recruited from multiple centers simultaneously.