Expectations and Beliefs About Children's Cancer Symptoms: Perspectives of Children With Cancer and Their Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To describe the childhood cancer symptom course experienced by children with cancer from the perspectives of the children and their families. DESIGN: Longitudinal, qualitative research approach. SETTING: The participants' homes and inpatient and outpatient pediatric cancer units in western Canada. SAMPLE: A theoretical purposive sample of 39 children (4.5-18 years of age) with a variety of cancer diagnoses and their family members. METHODS: Open-ended formal interviews with children and their family members (N = 230) and participant observation of children and their family members for more than 960 hours during various periods during their illness, at various locations, and at different points in time during the study period. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Children's and their families' perspectives of cancer symptoms experienced by children with cancer. FINDINGS: Children and families had definite beliefs and expectations about the cancer symptom experiences, including (a) short-term pain for long-term gain, (b) you never get used to them, (c) they all suck, (d) it sort of helps, and (e) they are all the same but they are all different. Underpinning all of the participants' beliefs and expectations was the experience of suffering. Their beliefs and expectations contributed to and were a direct result of cancer symptoms that were ignored, unrelieved, or uncontrolled. CONCLUSIONS: Children with cancer live with symptoms on a daily basis and have experiences of unrelieved cancer symptoms. Although cancer symptoms resulted in suffering by the children and families, they accepted the symptoms as an integral part of overcoming cancer and never expected complete symptom relief. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Oncology nurses need to be more vigilant in their assessment and management of children's cancer symptoms. Further research is warranted detailing not only children's and family's beliefs and expectations of cancer symptom experiences but also nurses' understanding and interpretations of children's cancer symptom experiences. Intervention studies designed to relieve all types of cancer symptoms experienced by children must be undertaken.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".