Attitudes toward Infection Prophylaxis in Pediatric Oncology: A Qualitative Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risks and benefits of infection prophylaxis are uncertain in children with cancer and thus, preferences should be considered in decision making. The purpose of this report was to describe the attitudes of parents, children and healthcare professionals to infection prophylaxis in pediatric oncology. METHODS: THE STUDY WAS COMPLETED IN THREE PHASES: 1) An initial qualitative pilot to identify the main attributes influencing the decision to use infection prophylaxis, which were then incorporated into a discrete choice experiment; 2) A think aloud during the discrete choice experiment in which preferences for infection prophylaxis were elicited quantitatively; and 3) In-depth follow up interviews. Interviews were recorded verbatim and analyzed using an iterative, thematic analysis. Final themes were selected using a consensus approach. RESULTS: A total of 35 parents, 22 children and 28 healthcare professionals participated. All three groups suggested that the most important factor influencing their decision making was the effect of prophylaxis on reducing the chance of death. Themes of importance to the three groups included antimicrobial resistance, side effects of medications, the financial impact of outpatient prophylaxis and the route and schedule of administration. CONCLUSION: Effect of prophylaxis on risk of death was a key factor in decision making. Other identified factors were antimicrobial resistance, side effects of medication, financial impact and administration details. Better understanding of factors driving decision making for infection prophylaxis will help facilitate future implementation of prophylactic regiments.
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".