1. Introduction

Everyday pains (EDPs; ie, minor bumps and scrapes incurred during everyday activities) are experienced frequently, particularly early in development when children begin walking and attending school.13,23,32 Everyday pains provide young children with opportunities for learning about pain during critical developmental periods. This learning could be influenced by parents' responses to painful events. Nevertheless, research examining EDPs is scarce, and no self-report measures of parent responses to young children's EDPs exist.

Among infant, child, and adolescent samples, parent behaviors that direct attention toward pain (eg, verbal reassurance) or that reinforce pain behaviors (eg, protectiveness) are linked to increased child pain, distress, and disability2–4,7,9,22,24,32 and have been conceptualized within an operant learning framework.6,14,19 However, it cannot be assumed that parent responses have the same effect in clinical and naturalistic settings25,33 and in children with and without chronic conditions. To date, only a handful of studies have examined EDPs in children aged 1 to 7 years.13,15,23,26,27,32 Findings reveal that EDPs are frequent, sometimes evoke distress and caregiver responses, and are influenced by child age and sex.25 In most studies, observers used observational checklists (eg, the Dalhousie Everyday Pain Scale) to code caregivers' responses to young children's EDPs.13,15,23,26,32 More recently, parents have used electronic diaries to self-report their child's pain and their own distress. However, this field is limited by the lack of self-report measures of caregiver responses to EDPs in young children's.

Informed by parent behaviors observed in a study of parent responses to young children's EDPs,23 we developed a preliminary self-report measure of parent behavioral responses to EDPs during the toddler and preschool years (the PREP) and examined its relationship with child age, sex, and parent and child distress.

2. Methods 2.1. Participants

Parents (N = 294) participated in an online survey which took approximately 30 minutes to complete. Participants missing >3 items were excluded, leaving a final sample of N = 290 parents, which is consistent with best practice recommendations for exploratory factor analyses (EFAs).5,18 Participants were primarily mothers (93%) of children aged 18 to 60 months (Table 1). Inclusion criteria were (1) have >1 child between 18–60 months, (2) able to read and understand English, and (3) have Internet access. The Research Ethics Board approved this study.

Table 1 - Participant characteristics. Variable Parent report (N = 290) Child age (mo), mean (SD), (N = 285) 34.98 (11.88) Child sex, N (%)  Male 139 (47.9)  Female 148 (51.0)  No response 3 (1.0) Child race, N (%)  White 263 (90.7)  Asian 3 (1.0)  Arab 2 (0.7)  Black 5 (1.7)  Latin American 1 (0.3)  Native/Aboriginal 1 (0.3)  Other 14 (4.8)  No response 1 (0.3) Parent age (y), mean (SD), (N = 275) 33.60 (4.64) Parent relationship to child, N (%)  Mother 270 (93.1)  Father 16 (5.5)  Stepmother 2 (0.7)  No response 2 (0.7) Parent race, N (%)  White 271 (93.4)  Asian 1 (0.3)  Arab 2 (0.7)  Black 3 (1.0)  Latin American 1 (0.3)  Native/Aboriginal 1 (0.3)  Other 7 (2.4)  No response 4 (1.4) Parent marital status, N (%)  Married/common law 259 (89.3)  Divorced/separated 12 (4.1)  Never married 15 (5.2)  Remarried 2 (0.7)  No response 2 (0.7) Parent highest level of education, N (%)  Some high school 2 (0.7)  High school graduate 21 (7.2)  Trade school/community college 59 (20.3)  University graduate 100 (34.5)  Grad/professional school 107 (26.9)  No response 1 (0.3) Parent and child everyday pain distress, mean (SD)*  Parent distress (N = 289) 1.21 (1.04)  Child distress (N = 287) 2.58 (1.28)

*Possible scores ranged from 0 to 5 with higher scores indicating more distress or pain.

2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Demographics

Parents reported their age, racialized identity/ethnicity, relationship to child, marital status, and educational level. They reported on their child's age, sex, and racialized identity/ethnicity.

2.2.2. Everyday pains in young children

The Parent Responses to Everyday Pains (the PREP) questionnaire assessed parents' self-reported responses to their child's EDP experiences. Everyday pain experiences were defined as instances when a child's body comes into contact with another person or object and results in either: (1) a distress (eg, crying), anger, or protective (eg, help-seeking) reaction from the child or (2) the parent judges that the child experienced at least momentary, minor discomfort. Items were based on the Dalhousie Everyday Pains Scale-Revised, a behavioural checklist used in an observational study of parent responses to toddler's EDPs.13 Using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“never”) to 5 (“usually”), parents were asked to indicate how often they engage in 46 responses. Possible responses were separated into 28 verbal statements (eg, “Tell him/her to stop crying”) and 18 observable actions (eg, “Distract child with a toy”) (Supplementary Material, https://links.lww.com/PR9/A229). Given that the empirical study from which this measure was based23 coded only parents' observable actions and not verbal statements (due to the busy nature of the play setting), only items reflecting observable responses to children's pain were included in the analyses.

2.2.3. Parent and child distress

Parents were asked to indicate how distressed they and their child are, on average, following the child's EDP experiences on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (“low distress”) to 5 (“high distress”).

2.3. Procedure

Parents were recruited to participate in the study through online and newspaper advertisements, posters, and email invitations through hospitals, community centers, and social media. Parents provided consent to participate and were entered into a draw for 1 of 3 $100 gift certificates.

2.4. Data analysis

Analyses were conducted using SPSS (v22). An EFA was performed on the 18 observable PREP items. Similar to previous pediatric pain studies,12,24 iterated principal axis factoring using a nonorthogonal (oblique) rotation method was used as this method allows factors to be correlated, resulting in a more accurate, reproducible solution.11 Eigenvalues ≥1,10 >50% of variance explained,17,29,31 and the initial scree plot were used to select a factor structure.

To be retained in the model, individual items were required to have a primary loading above the recommended threshold of 0.3231 and items that cross-loaded on the same factor had to have loadings of at least twice the value of the other.12 We systematically removed items one at a time and reran analyses each time, applying these criteria at each stage. Models were run until a clean solution was obtained. Final clean solutions were examined and compared. The superiority of models was judged based on interpretability and overall variance accounted for. Factor solutions were required to have at least 3 items loading onto each subscale.10

Bivariate correlations were conducted between the final subscales and child age, sex, and child and parent distress.

3. Results

The initial EFA resulted in 5 factors with initial eigenvalues above 1.0% and 63.4% variance explained. The scree plot suggested a 3-factor solution; therefore, 5-factor, 4-factor, and 3-factor models were tested by forcing each respective solution. In the initial EFA, the 4-factor and 3-factor models accounted for 57.5% and 50.4% of the variance, respectively.

After systematically removing poorly loading and highly cross-loading items for each model, final clean solutions were obtained. The 5-factor solution accounted for 55.6% of the total model variance; however, 2 of the factors included only 2 items. The 4-factor model explained 56.6% of the total model variance; however, one of the subscales was indicative of an absence of soothing behaviors, which was deemed not as interpretable as the 3-factor model. The 3-factor model was deemed to be superior to the 4-factor and 5-factor models based on both interpretability and total variance explained. The final solution included 10 items across 3 factors: Distract (4 items), Physical Soothe (3 items), and Extra Attention (3 items). The final 3-factor solution explained 60% of the model variance with each factor explaining 33.2%, 19.6%, and 7.2% of the variance, respectively. The final model had primary loadings of >0.50 (Table 2).

Table 2 - Exploratory factor analysis factor loading matrix for parent behavioral responses to everyday pains in the toddler and preschool years items for the final 3-factor model. PREP item Distract Physical soothe Extra attention 1. Give him/her hugs and/or kisses 0.61 2. Pick him/her up 0.76 3. Cuddle him/her 0.97 4. Distract him/her with a toy 0.81 5. Point to something else to distract him/her 0.95 6. Ask him/her to help you with a new activity 0.71 7. Take him/her out of the play setting 0.51 8. Give him/her extra attention 0.68 9. Do something special to make him/her feel better 0.67 10. Try to engage him/her in a new play activity 0.62

The following items were removed: show no reaction/try to show no reaction; leave the room; pay no attention until he/she goes back to playing; rub the hurt area better; kiss the “boo-boo” or hurt area better; stay closer to him/her; keep close watch on his/her activities so that he/she does not get hurt again; gently tap or swat his/her bottom.

PREP, parent behavioral responses to everyday pains in the toddler and preschool years.

Internal consistency was high for the Distract (0.87) and Physical Soothe (0.83) subscales and acceptable for the Extra Attention subscale (0.69). Table 3 presents mean subscale and item scores.

Table 3 - Mean (SD) parent behavioral responses to everyday pains in the toddler and preschool years scores by subscale (N = 290). Parental response Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Physical soothe 3.87 (0.79)  Hug/kiss child 4.23 (0.82)  Pick up child* 3.57 (0.98)  Cuddle child 3.81 (0.96) Distract 2.90 (0.82)  Distract child with a toy 2.87 (0.95)  Point to something else to distract child* 2.92 (1.02)  Ask child to help with a new activity 2.92 (0.97)  Try to engage child in a new activity 2.98 (0.94) Extra attention 2.45 (0.73)  Take child out of play setting* 2.04 (8.6)  Give child extra attention 2.83 (1.03)  Do something special to make the child feel better 2.47 (0.92)

Possible scores ranged from 1 to 5; higher scores indicate more frequent engagement in pain response.

*n = 289 responses.

Bivariate correlations revealed that higher scores on the Distract subscale were positively associated with child (but not parent) distress during EDP events (r = 0.12, P < 0.05). Higher scores on the Physical Soothe and Extra Attention subscales were positively associated with child (r = 0.21, P < 0.001; r = 0.21, P < 0.001) and parent distress (r = 0.21, P < 0.001; r = 0.32, P < 0.001). Physical Soothe scores were negatively related to child age (r = −0.12, P < 0.05). No subscale scores differed significantly by child sex (P > 0.05).

4. Discussion

This study describes the development and preliminary testing of a 10-item self-report measure of parental responses to EDPs during the toddler and preschool years. While some items (Distract, Extra Attention) are consistent with responses assessed on measures for use with older youth,24 others (Physical Soothe) are more characteristic of earlier developmental periods. Parents of younger children in our previous study were more likely to engage in more physical soothing in response to their children's EDPs.23 All PREP subscales were related to child distress in the context of EDPs; however, relationships were small and require further investigation. While higher Physical Soothe and Extra Attention scores were related to greater parent distress to children's EDPs, distracting responses were not. These findings may be conceptualized within Goubert's pain empathy model,16 which posits that parents who experience self-oriented distress on observing their child in pain may be less able to engage in responses to child pain that can foster adaptive coping. Distracting responses have been linked to less child pain and distress in laboratory-based and clinical pain settings among infants to older adolescents.1,8,21,28 Physical soothing and providing extra attention may be driven by heightened parental distress and a self-oriented response; however, further research is needed.

This study has limitations. The PREP includes only observable parent responses to children's EDPs in a sample of primarily mothers. Parents' verbal behaviors (eg, reassurance) have been linked to child pain outcomes in other acute pain settings7,22; further measure development work examining verbal responses is warranted. The utility of the PREP as a nonverbal behavioral measure of parent responses might be limited to younger developmental periods. Effect sizes of the relationships between the PREP subscales and child and parent distress were small; therefore, practical implications cannot be definitively drawn. Research is needed with larger samples to further validate the PREP using confirmatory factor analysis and relationships to other measures of parent responses to child pain. Future research using the PREP with ecological momentary assessment methods could be used to assess variation in parental distress and responses to EDPs across contexts.

Disclosures

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be constructed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (89887), the Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation (3508; now Research Nova Scotia), and the Canada Foundation for Innovation (6959) awarded to Dr. Christine Chambers, who currently holds a Canada Research Chair Children's Pain (Tier I). M.N. holds and is supported by the Killam Memorial Emerging Leader Chair (Calgary, Alberta, Canada).

Data availability statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Supplemental digital content

Supplemental digital content associated with this article can be found online at https://links.lww.com/PR9/A229.

References [1]. Birnie KA, Noel M, Chambers CT, Uman LS, Parker JA. Psychological interventions for needle‐related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;10:CD005179. [2]. Blount RL, Corbin SM, Sturges JW, Wolfe VV, Prater JM, Denise James L. The relationship between adults' behavior and child coping and distress during BMA/LP procedures: a sequential analysis. Behav Ther 1989;20:585–601. [3]. Blount RL, Devine KA, Cheng PS, Simons LE, Hayutin L. The impact of adult behaviors and vocalizations on infant distress during immunizations. J Pediatr Psychol 2008;33:1163–74. [4]. Bush JP, Melamed BG, Sheras PL, Greenbaum PE. Mother-child patterns of coping with anticipatory medical stress. Health Psychol 1986;5:137–57. [5]. Cattell RB. The scientific use of factor analysis. New York: Plenum, 1978. [6]. Chambers CT. The role of family factors in pediatric pain. In: McGrath PJ, Finley GA, editors. Pediatric pain: biological and social context. Seattle: IASP Press, 2003. p. 99–130. [7]. Chambers CT, Craig KD, Bennett SM. The impact of maternal behavior on children's pain experiences: an experimental analysis. J Pediatr Psychol 2002;27:293–301. [8]. Cohen LL. Reducing infant immunization distress through distraction. Health Psychol 2002;21:207–11. [9]. Cohen LL, Manimala R, Blount RL. Easier said than done: what parents say they do and what they do during children's immunizations. Childrens Health Care 2000;29:79–86. [10]. Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Prac Assess Res Eval 2005;10. doi: 10.7275/jyj1-4868 [11]. Cox BJ, Swinson RP, Parker JDA, Kuch K, Reichman JT. Confirmatory factor analysis of the fear questionnaire in panic disorder with agoraphobia. Psychol Assess 1993;5:235–7. [12]. Essner B, Noel M, Myrvik M, Palermo T. Examination of the factor structure of the adolescent sleep-wake scale (ASWS). Behav Sleep Med 2015;13:296–307. [13]. Fearon I, McGrath JP, Achat H. Booboos': the study of everyday pain among young children. PAIN 1996;68:55–62. [14]. Franck L, Noble G, Liossi C. From tears to words: the development of language to express pain in young children with everyday minor illnesses and injuries. Child Care Health Dev 2010;36:524–33. [15]. Gilbert-MacLeod CA, Craig KD, Rocha EM, Mathias MD. Everyday pain responses in children with and without developmental delays. J Pediatr Psychol 2000;25:301–8. [16]. Goubert L, Craig KD, Vervoort T, Morley S, Sullivan MJ, Williams dCAC, Cano A, Crombez G. Facing others in pain: the effects of empathy. PAIN 2005;118:285–8. [17]. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. New York: Pearson, 2013. [18]. Kline P. An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge, 1994. [19]. Liossi C, Noble G, Franck LS. How parents make sense of their young children's expressions of everyday pain: a qualitative analysis. Eur J Pain 2012;16:1166–75. [20]. Manimala MR, Blount RL, Cohen LL. The effects of parental reassurance versus distraction on child distress and coping during immunizations. Childrens Health Care 2000;29:161–77. [21]. McMurtry MC, Chambers CT, McGrath PJ, Asp E. When “don't worry” communicates fear: children's perceptions of parental reassurance and distraction during a painful medical procedure. PAIN 2010;150:52–8. [22]. McMurtry CM, McGrath PJ, Asp E, Chambers CT. Parental reassurance and pediatric procedural pain: a linguistic description. J Pain 2007;8:95–101. [23]. Noel M, Chambers CT, Parker JA, Aubrey K, Tutelman PR, Morrongiello B, Moore C, McGrath PJ, Yanchar NL, Von Baeyer CL. Boo-boos as the building blocks of pain expression: an observational examination of parental responses to everyday pain in toddlers. Can J Pain 2018;2:74–86. [24]. Noel M, Palermo TM, Essner B, Zhou C, Levy RL, Langer SL, Sherman AL, Walker LS. A developmental analysis of the factorial validity of the parent-report version of the adult responses to children's symptoms in children versus adolescents with chronic pain or pain-related chronic illness. J Pain 2015;16:31–41. [25]. O'Sullivan G, McGuire BE, Roche M, Caes L. Where do children learn about pain? The role of caregiver responses to preschoolers' pain experience within natural settings. PAIN 2021;162:1289–94. [26]. O'Sullivan G, McGuire B, Roche M, Caes L. Am I being watched? The role of researcher presence on toddlers' behaviour during ‘everyday’ pain experiences: a pilot study. Psychol Health 2020;35:1115–33. [27]. O'Sullivan G, McGuire B, Roche M, Caes L. Exploring parental responses to pre-schoolers’ “everyday” pain experiences through electronic diary and ecological momentary assessment methodologies. Front Psychol 2021;12:741963. [28]. Pillai Riddell R, Taddio A, McMurtry CM, Chambers C, Shah V, Noel M, HELPinKIDS Team. Psychological interventions for vaccine injections in young children 0 to 3 years: systematic review of randomized controlled trials and quasi- randomized controlled trials. Clin J Pain 2015;31:S64–71. [29]. Streiner DL. Figuring out factors: the use and misuse of factor analysis. Can J Psychiatry 1994;39:135–40. [30]. Sweet SD, McGrath PJ. Relative importance of mothers' versus medical staffs' behavior in the prediction of infant immunization pain behavior. J Pediatr Psychol 1998;23:249–56. [31]. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn&Bacon, 2007. [32]. von Baeyer CL, Baskerville S, McGrath PJ. Everyday pain in three- to five-year-old children in day care. Pain Res Manag 1998;3:111–6. [33]. Wallwork SB, Noel M, Moseley GL. Communicating with children about ‘everyday’ pain and injury: a Delphi study. Eur J Pain 2022;26:1863–72.