Themes reported by families as important when proceeding with pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an accepted treatment for pediatric malignant and non-malignant conditions. Agreeing to HSCT can be challenging for families. This study explored themes reported by family members as influencing their acceptance of HSCT as a necessary treatment intervention. PROCEDURE: In a four-site study, 107 individuals within 30 families pursuing HSCT for a pediatric malignancy, and 25 individuals within 6 families pursuing HSCT for a pediatric non-malignancy were interviewed pre-HSCT. Semantic content analysis was used in this secondary analysis to identify relevant themes. RESULTS: Fifty-eight parents (and surrogates) 19 patients, 16 donor siblings, and 39 non-donor siblings, half-siblings and cousins, participated. Thirteen themes were identified as influencing the acceptance of HSCT. The most frequently reported were: "recommendation by the child's physician," viewing HSCT as the "best chance for cure," and "desiring a more normal and better quality of life for the patient and family." Seven themes were reported by all categories of family members, though at different frequencies. Two themes ("HSCT being part of the upfront treatment plan": "hearing of HSCT success in others") were only reported by the malignancy group, and one theme ("worrying about disease progression and losing a window of HSCT opportunity") was only reported by the non-malignancy group. CONCLUSION: Parents, patients, and other family members can articulate multiple themes that influence their considerations of HSCT. Understanding these themes may guide discussions between families and healthcare teams.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".