Review of a Parent’s Influence on Pediatric Procedural Distress and Recovery

Understanding how parents influence their child’s medical procedures can inform future work to reduce pediatric procedural distress and improve recovery outcomes. Following a pediatric injury or illness diagnosis, the associated medical procedures can be potentially traumatic events that are often painful and distressing and can lead to the child experiencing long-term physical and psychological problems. Children under 6 years old are particularly at risk of illness or injury, yet their pain-related distress during medical procedures is often difficult to manage because of their young developmental level. Parents can also experience ongoing psychological distress following a child’s injury or illness diagnosis. The parent and parenting behavior is one of many risk factors for increased pediatric procedural distress. The impact of parents on pediatric procedural distress is an important yet not well-understood phenomenon. There is some evidence to indicate parents influence their child through their own psychological distress and through parenting behavior. This paper has three purposes: (1) review current empirical research on parent-related risk factors for distressing pediatric medical procedures, and longer-term recovery outcomes; (2) consider and develop existing theories to present a new model for understanding the parent–child distress relationship during medical procedures; and (3) review and make recommendations regarding current assessment tools and developing parenting behavior interventions for reducing pediatric procedural distress.     

The Box Task: A tool to design experiments for assessing visuospatial working memory

The present paper describes the Box Task, a paradigm for the computerized assessment of visuospatial working memory. In this task, hidden objects have to be searched by opening closed boxes that are shown at different locations on the computer screen. The set size (i.e., number of boxes that must be searched) can be varied and different error scores can be computed that measure specific working memory processes (i.e., the number of within-search and between-search errors). The Box Task also has a developer’s mode in which new stimulus displays can be designed for use in tailored experiments. The Box Task comes with a standard set of stimulus displays (including practice trials, as well as stimulus displays with 4, 6, and 8 boxes). The raw data can be analyzed easily and the results of individual participants can be aggregated into one spreadsheet for further statistical analyses.     

Development of the Diabetes Self-Care Efficacy Scale

The present study elaborates the conceptualization and process of development of a scale for assessing diabetes self-care efficacy (DSCE) in patients of diabetes, type 1 and type 2. Health maintenance in chronic illness as diabetes is dependent on performing several key self-care behaviours. The present study discusses two parts—Part I elaborates the qualitative exploration of the research construct through semi-structured interview of diabetic patients. It included 25 diabetic patients, Type-I (n?=?5) and Type-II (n?=?20). Part II discusses the quantitative research methods. The sample consisted of 233 diabetic patients, Type-1 (n?=?39) and Type-2 (n?=?194), who were randomly selected from diabetes and endocrine outpatient department (OPD) of a hospital in, Kolkata, India. Following an exploratory approach employing Principal Component Analysis (PCA), three components were yielded that accounted for approximately 60% of explained variance. Cronbach’s alpha was established at 0.89 indicating satisfactory internal reliability. The components were identified as component 1, “Beliefs about physical exercise regimen” (BPE), component 2, “Beliefs about food and insulin administration and medication recommendations” (FMR) and component 3, “Beliefs about learning and following from others” (LFO). To test the obtained factor structure of the proposed DSCE scale, a confirmatory analysis was performed to help validate the 3-factor, 15-item DSCE scale. The scale is first one of its kind to be proposed and developed in an Indian diabetes context and can prove useful in other settings. Study findings have implications for use in hospital setup and for development of intervention programs in dealing with diabetes patient population.     

Other‐Centric Reasoning

This article considers question‐begging's opposite fallacy. Instead of relying on my beliefs for my premises when I should be using my adversary's beliefs, I rely on my adversary's beliefs when I should rely on my own. Just as question‐begging emerges from egocentrism, its opposite emerges from other‐centrism. Stepping into the other person's shoes is an effective strategy for understanding him. But you must return to your own shoes when forming your beliefs. Evidence is agent centered. Other‐centric reasoning is most striking when both parties partake simultaneously. We are then treated to the spectacle of each side using the other's premises to establish its conclusion. These remarkable debates arise regularly when there is open disagreement about whether a right‐conferring relationship has ended. Those who contend the relationship is abrogated will be tempted to stand on the rights persistently credited to them by their adversary.     

Object-Tool-Actor Interaction: Object Information Drives Intended Action

Tool use is typically explored via actor-tool interactions. However, the target-object (that which is being acted on) may influence perceived action possibilities and thereby guide action. Three different tool-target-object pairings were tested (Experiment 1). The hammering action demonstrated the greatest sensitivity and therefore subsequently used to further investigate target-object pairings. The hammer was removed as an option and instructions were provided using pictorial (Experiment 2), written (Experiment 3), and both pictorial and written formats (Experiment 4). The designed tool is chosen when available (Experiment 1) and when removed as a choice (i.e., the hammer), participants perform the same action associated with the designed tool (i.e., hammering) regardless of instruction method (Experiments 2, 3, and 4).