Parents of children with cancer: Which factors explain differences in health‐related quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research with parents of children with cancer has identified factors related to their adjustment and coping, but it is not fully understood why some parents do well and others do not. Guided by a stress process model, we examined the interrelationships among a comprehensive set of factors to identify the most important determinants of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in parents of children in active treatment for cancer. A cross-sectional survey of 411 parents (80% response rate) of children receiving cancer treatment in Canada was conducted between November 2004 and February 2007. The following constructs were measured: background and context factors, child characteristics, family-centered service delivery, caregiver strain, intrapsychic factors, coping/supportive factors and parental HRQoL. The model was evaluated using structural equation modeling. Analysis was stratified by time since diagnosis (i.e., <12 months and ≥12 months). For those within 12 months of their child's diagnosis, family-centred service provision, caregiver strain, and self-perception accounted for 58% of the variation in psychosocial health, whereas caregiver strain and social support explained 50% of the variation in physical health. For parents in the >12 month group, caregiving strain was the only factor with a direct relationship with parental psychosocial and physical health, accounting for 66% and 55% of the variance in these constructs, respectively. Our findings reinforce the need for health professionals to be particularly attuned to family caregivers in the early stages of treatment and identify potential areas for interventions to promote parental health.
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) | 0.001 | 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".