Health Care Providers’ Perspectives About Working With Parents of Children With Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research to understand the sources of stress and job satisfaction in pediatric oncology staff is limited. The aim of the authors' qualitative study was to describe the key work-related demands and rewards in relation to working closely with parents from the perspective of health care providers (HCPs). Semistructured interviews were conducted with 13 doctors, 9 nurses, 5 social workers, and 6 child life specialists. Line-by-line, focused, and theoretical coding was used to establish categories and themes. Constant comparisons were used to examine the relationships within and across codes and categories. Interviewing continued until no new themes emerged. HCPs found it rewarding when they established close or long-term relationships with parents and to helped families through the entire cancer journey, including palliative care. HCPs found it challenging to work with complex families; with parents who are demanding, rude, or angry; with parents who have differing views about the treatments and palliative care; and with having to relay bad news to parents. Future research could explore the relationship between the factors that the authors have identified and burnout syndrome.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".