Home chemotherapy for children with cancer: perspectives from health care professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to determine the perspectives of healthcare professionals (HPs) from community and hospital settings involved in a paediatric home chemotherapy programme. Using a prospective descriptive study design, HPs including paediatricians, community nurses, hospital clinic nurses, administrators and pharmacists were interviewed using a moderately structured open-ended approach. Through inductive content analysis, data were categorised under three themes reflecting HPs' perspectives on the programme: (1) perceived family benefits, (2) human resources and service delivery considerations and (3) impact on the role of the HP. All HPs reported that home chemotherapy helped reduce both disruption to family life and psychological stress. Community-based HPs reported increased job satisfaction, increased workload and increased frustration related to scheduling challenges. Hospital-based HPs reported decreased patient interaction and discrepancies in workload changes. Both groups emphasised the need for consistency in care and for specific chemotherapy training. Service delivery issues included the need for more clarity in the programme process, improved eligibility criteria, a focus on community laboratory coordination and development of centralised communications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".