Talking With Others Who “Just Know”: Perceptions of Adolescents With Cancer Who Participate in a Teen Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents with cancer have social support needs that are challenging to meet. A qualitative descriptive study was done using in-person interviews with 11 participants between the ages of 14 and 20. The purpose of the study was to explore and describe adolescent's perceptions of a teen support group. Two main themes emerged: Satisfying Elements and Challenges in the teen group. The subthemes under Satisfying Elements include participants being able to talk to others who "just know," sharing experiences while having fun as a normal teenager, and giving or receiving inspiration. Subthemes under Challenges as identified by participants include ensuring that activities during teen events meet the needs of all participants and dealing with the death of a group member. Study findings suggest that adolescent's feel supported when they are among others in similar circumstances while engaging in normal activity. Offering this type of group for adolescents with cancer provides them with the ongoing opportunities for connection with their peers that is often needed throughout the treatment journey.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".