MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4409318057 · doi:10.1097/cr9.0000000000000072

Childhood Cancer Survivorship: Nurses in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Poised to Lead

2025· article· en· W4409318057 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julia Challinor

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Care Research Online · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSurvivorship curveChildhood cancerLead (geology)CancerCancer survivorshipLow and middle income countriesMedicineEnvironmental healthEconomic growthDeveloping countryEconomicsBiologyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

An early example of childhood cancer survivorship surveillance in high-income countries (HIC) began in 1972 with the Late Effects Study Group (LESG), 12 pediatric oncology treatment facilities in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe, sharing data on second malignancies posttreatment.1 By 1983, the first childhood cancer survivorship clinic led by a pediatric oncology nurse practitioner, Wendy Hobbie, RN, MSN, CRNP, FAAN, was established at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in the United States.2 This initiative demonstrated nursing’s inherent role in ensuring that the end of treatment does not mean the end of care and a nurse’s ability to lead this follow-up service. In general, care for children/adolescents with cancer in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), where greater than 80% of this population lives, is focused on disease survival. Comprehensive treatment is challenging, particularly for cancers requiring high-cost chemotherapies, substantial supportive care, or specialized surgery, for example, leukemias and central nervous system tumors. Formal survival surveillance programs are rare mainly due to factors such as shortages of specialized pediatric oncologists and nurses in general, limited training in survivorship care, and nonexistent government financial support. Nevertheless, childhood cancer treatment in many LMIC has long been supported by HIC partners such as French childhood cancer centers (eg, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif), the Francophone-African Group of Pediatric Oncology,3 and St Jude Children’s Research Hospital in the US and centers in Latin America.4 Although in many LMIC, there is a shortage of nurses in general and a lack of specialization training in pediatric oncology nursing, in all but 3 countries, there are significantly more nurses overall than physicians. This means that existing nurses caring for children/adolescents across LMIC are well-positioned to take the lead on survivorship surveillance. They know and have cared for these young patients who have survived cancer. They have a position of trust with the families and in many cases ties to the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), for example, Childhood Cancer International (a parent and survivor NGO in 90 countries5), which have supported the families of these children/adolescents since diagnosis to avoid treatment abandonment. With minimal training, the experienced nurses in many of these LMIC centers can follow the lead of Hobbie and colleagues from years ago and begin to coordinate basic survivorship screening and surveillance following new guidelines for use in limited resource settings.6 Hobbie2 mentions the nursing role in survivorship as clinician-caregiver, educator, and researcher. Although the role of nurse practitioner is not formally recognized in many LMIC, the current nursing workforce in this subspecialty in several countries includes nurses with this scope of practice in acute care settings.7 The time is overdue for the growing population of LMIC childhood cancer survivors to have access to surveillance and support for the physical/mental health and psychosocial consequences of childhood cancer treatment. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3 states “Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.”8 For survivors of childhood cancer everywhere, this begins at the end of treatment with a formal plan for survivorship surveillance in alignment with the patient’s disease and treatment and a transition to adult care with a professional who is informed about the risks and prevention strategies for long-term childhood cancer survivors. Pediatric oncology nurses across LMIC are well poised to lead initial foundational survivorship programs in collaboration with local NGOs, multidisciplinary colleagues in cancer centers (including local adult healthcare professionals to sustain follow-up care), and international partners, thus emulating the inaugural efforts of pioneer Hobbie and subsequent nurse leaders in childhood cancer survivorship care.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,019
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,038

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,002
Communication savante0,0030,004
Science ouverte0,0010,010
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,057
Tête enseignante GPT0,437
Écart entre enseignants0,380 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer Care Research OnlineMême sujetChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeTravaux en français237 207