Supportive and palliative care needs of families of children who die from cancer: an Australian study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To obtain feedback from parents of children who died from cancer about their understanding of palliative care, their experiences of palliative and supportive care received during their child's illness, and their palliative and supportive care needs. DESIGN: A qualitative study with semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: 24 parents from Perth (n = 10), Melbourne (n = 5), Brisbane (n = 5) and Sydney (n = 4). SETTING: Five Australian tertiary paediatric oncology centres. Results Parents whose children died from cancer live within a context of chronic uncertainty and apprehension. Parents construed palliative care negatively as an independent process at the end of their children's lives rather than as a component of a wider and continuous process where children and their families are offered both curative and palliative care throughout the cancer trajectory. The concept of palliative care was perceived to be misunderstood by key health professionals involved in the care of the child and family. The importance and therapeutic value of authentic and honest relationships between health professionals and parents, and between health professionals and children were highlighted as a critical aspect of care. Also highlighted was the need to include children and adolescents in decision making, and for the delivery of compassionate end-of-life care that is sensitive to the developmental needs of the children, their parents and siblings. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for health professionals to better understand the concept of palliative care, and factors that contribute to honest, open, authentic and therapeutic relationships of those concerned in the care of the dying child. This will facilitate a better understanding by both parents and their children with cancer, and acceptance of the integration of palliative and supportive care in routine cancer care.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".