Quality of life of parents diagnosed with cancer: change over time and influencing factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suffering from cancer while having parental responsibilities can amplify the psychosocial strain that the disease puts on the individual as well as on the whole family system. Our longitudinal study examines changes in the quality of life of cancer patients in relation to parenthood. The quality of life of cancer patients is assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item version during the initial treatment period (T1) and compared to the quality of life 2 years later (T2). Two groups of patients are compared: those who have children below the age of 18 years (n= 41) and those who do not have children (n= 28). Shortly after being diagnosed with cancer (T1), both groups report a similarly low quality of life. Two years later (T2), individuals with children below the age of 18 report better quality of life on the majority of the dimensions assessed. However, variance analysis did not show that this is an independent effect of parenthood. In fact, having a partner and being female proved to impact the quality of life. These findings support the existing body of research on the influence of social support and gender on quality of life. The resulting limitations and suggestions on how to overcome them in further research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".