A Comparative Assessment of Attendance and Nonattendance at Camp Trillium by Children With Cancer and Their Families; Including Their Utilization of Health and Social Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Camping programs for children with chronic diseases are designed for specific needs, but rigorous evaluation of their impact is largely lacking. The biggest camp for children with cancer and their families provided an opportunity to conduct such an investigation. METHODS: The study sample consisted of 76 attendee and 86 non-attendee families. Parents and children completed a series of validated questionnaires addressing family functioning (the primary effect measure); health-related quality of life (HRQL) of the patients; the children's behavior and relationships; parental behavior, mood and social support; parental nurturance, rejection and monitoring (from the perspective of the children); and a health and social service utilization inventory. RESULTS: The most common diagnoses in the attendee and nonattendee groups were acute lymphoblastic leukemia and central nervous system tumors, respectively. A higher proportion of attendees were receiving active treatment (26.7% vs. 5.8%), almost all for relapsed disease. Parent attendees reported significantly better family function and social support, and parenting skills and coping, than nonattendee parents. The parental proxy assessments of the children's overall HRQL revealed significantly better scores for the attendees, although there was a greater burden of pain among attendees and of cognitive morbidity among nonattendees. Costs related to health care and social services were substantially greater in the attendee families. CONCLUSIONS: Children with cancer cannot be randomized not to attend camp. So the results of this study cannot resolve the conundrum--do better-adapted families attend a camp designed to meet the special needs of their children, or does attendance materially improve the health and welfare of families of children with cancer? However, the very proliferation of such camps is indicative of a need being met and greater efforts should be made to promote the camping experience, and to encourage such children and their families to participate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".