My Child has Cancer: The Costs of Mothers' Experiences of Having a Child with Pediatric Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this exploratory research was to examine the lived experiences of female caregivers of children with cancer during diagnosis, treatment and the period thereafter. The specific purpose of this article was to examine the various costs associated with caring for a child with pediatric cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Interviews were completed with nine mothers of children who had been treated for pediatric cancer. RESULTS: From this process, a number of salient issues were identified; however, this article focuses solely on the costs of caring for a child with cancer. The subthemes derived from these findings include: (1) financial and work issues; (2) health of family; (3) upheaval of family life; and (4) a lost life. CONCLUSIONS: These findings exposed the realities of mothers faced with pediatric cancer, and reveal costs incurred by mothers caring for their ailing children, yielding information that can be used as a source of support for those faced with similar situations. Additionally, health care professionals are provided with insight into the costs associated with childhood cancer. This information can be used to help families cope more effectively with cancer and its negative effects.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".