Palliative Care of Children With Brain Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the end-of-life experience of children with brain tumors and their families. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of focus group interviews. SETTING: Children's Hospital, London Health Sciences Center. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five parents of 17 children who had died of brain tumors. INTERVENTION: Parents participated in 3 semistructured focus group interviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Themes identified through thematic analysis of interview transcripts. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis identified 3 primary themes. (1) Parents described the dying trajectory of their child as characterized by progressive neurologic deterioration, with the loss of the ability to communicate as a turning point. Parental coping mechanisms included striving to maintain normality and finding spiritual strength through maintaining hope and in the resilience of their child. (2) Parental struggles during this phase included balancing competing responsibilities and speaking with their child about death. (3) Barriers to achieving a home death included suboptimal symptom management, financial and practical hardships, and inadequate community support. A fourth, secondary theme concerned the therapeutic benefits of the interview. CONCLUSION: The neurologic deterioration that characterizes the dying trajectory of children with brain tumors may create significant challenges for health care professionals and the children's parents, supporting the need for increased awareness of the distinct issues in the palliative care of children with brain tumors and for early anticipatory guidance provided for families.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".