A Review of Qualitative Research on the Childhood Cancer Experience From the Perspective of Siblings: A Need to Give Them a Voice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers are increasingly adopting the qualitative research paradigm to study the world of siblings of children with cancer. The purpose of this review article is to identify the contributions of qualitative research in advancing the understanding of the childhood cancer experience from the perspective of siblings. Articles were selected for inclusion if (1) written in English; (2) published in a peer-reviewed journal between 1979 and present or, if a doctoral dissertation, easily accessible to the authors; (4) cited a specific qualitative research design or some type of qualitative research method of data collection and analysis; and (4) involved siblings of children with cancer as sole research participants or as research participants within the context of the family. Twenty-seven qualitative research studies were reviewed. Three themes emerged from an analysis of the primary findings: (1) changing lives, (2) intense feelings, and (3) unmet needs. Limitations in the conceptualization, research design, and research methods of the qualitative studies are discussed. Suggestions that will help researchers in conducting qualitative research with siblings are also presented.
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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".