Age differences in perceived social support by paediatric haematopoietic progenitor cell transplant patients: a longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe longitudinally different sources of perceived social support by children and adolescents who undergo haematopoietic progenitor cell transplant (HPCT). METHODS: Thirty-six (20 males, 16 females) survivors of paediatric HPCT, aged 8-18 years (Mean = 11.73), were assessed pre-HPCT and 6 months, 1 year and 2 years post-HPCT. Survivors were compared with siblings (n = 22) during the last assessment. The Social Support Scale for Children (SSSC), a self-report measure, provided scores on perceived social support from parents, teachers, friends and classmates. RESULTS: Throughout the 2 years post-HPCT, perceived social support from all sources was generally higher for survivors than for population norms. Over time, both children and adolescents reported higher social support from parents than the normative values. Over time, children perceived higher support from teachers than did adolescents, whereas adolescents' perceived social support from classmates increased but children's decreased. Survivors and siblings did not differ significantly in their perceived social support 2 years post-BMT. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study suggests that perceived parental support is equally important for children and adolescents but classmate and teacher social support varies with age. These developmental differences have important clinical implications for the care of these patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".