Factors affecting the delivery of family‐centered care in pediatric oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The provision of family-centered care (FCC) emphasizes a partnership between parents and health-care providers so that families are involved in every aspect of services for their child. Our study examines factors related to parental perception of the family-centeredness of pediatric oncology services. PROCEDURE: This Canadian multi-institutional cross-sectional study included children with cancer receiving active treatment. One parent from each family provided information about the child, parent/family demographics, diagnosis, and treatment. FCC was measured with the MPOC-20, a valid and reliable tool in the pediatric oncology setting that consists of two subscales: "Family-Centered Service" and "Providing General Information." Logistic multiple regression analyses were used to identify factors that were associated with lower ratings of FCC for each subscale. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were received back from 411 parents, giving an overall response rate of 80%. Worse perceived prognosis and worse parental psychosocial health were associated with less favorable ratings for both MPOC-20 subscales. In addition, parents who were not married or living common-law scored lower ratings for the Family-Centered Services subscale, whereas scores for the Provision of General Information subscale differed depending on the treatment facility at which the child received care. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified child/parent factors and health-care delivery factors associated with FCC provided in the pediatric oncology setting. These results could be used as the starting point for future research looking at optimization of the FCC process.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".