Knowledge and Utilization of Palliative Radiotherapy by Pediatric Oncologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Palliative radiotherapy (PRT) is a routine part of oncology care in adult patients, but it is used much less frequently among children with incurable cancer. We surveyed Canadian pediatric oncologists to learn about their knowledge and use of PRT and to identify potential barriers to referral. METHODS: A 13-item questionnaire assessing PRT knowledge and utilization was sent to 80 Canadian pediatric oncologists. RESULTS: The survey completion rate was 80%, with most respondents being providers of palliative care for children and making referrals for PRT. Although 62% had received training in radiation oncology, only 28% had received formal palliative care training. Respondents with palliative care training were found to be significantly more knowledgeable about PRT and were more likely to refer children for PRT (p < 0.01). Only 59% of respondents thought that they had adequate knowledge about the indications for PRT. A positive correlation was found between knowledge about the indications for PRT and referral for treatment (p < 0.01). Among survey respondents, 51% believed that PRT was underutilized, and the perceived barriers to PRT referral included patient or family reluctance, distance to the cancer centre, belief that PRT has little impact on quality of life, and concerns about toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative radiotherapy is considered to be underutilized among children. This situation appears to be related, in part, to inadequate knowledge and training among pediatric oncologists, suggesting that more emphasis needs to be placed on pediatric palliative care education.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".