MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065967150 · doi:10.1207/s15326888chc3102_4

Preliminary Investigation of a Group Intervention for Siblings of Pediatric Cancer Patients

2002· article· en· W2065967150 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Maru Barrera, Joanna Chung, Mark Greenberg, Carly Fleming

Bibliographic record

VenueChildren s Health Care · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)AnxietyCoping (psychology)Clinical psychologyPsychologyPopulationPediatric cancerGroup psychotherapyMedicinePsychiatryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This manuscript describes the Siblings Coping Together program, a group intervention that addresses emotional and behavior problems of siblings of children with cancer and presents preliminary findings. The program is manualized and consists of 8 weekly 2-hr sessions. Each session focuses on a predetermined theme with specific goals and activities. Seventeen siblings participated in a pre- and post group pilot evaluation. Data were collected from children and parents using standardized instruments, a satisfaction questionnaire, and a group process log completed by therapists. Siblings' reports suggest a trend in the reduction of anxiety and depressive symptoms post intervention, siblings and parents reported satisfaction with the intervention group, and the results of the analysis of the group log illustrated trends in group development. This preliminary study exemplifies key group intervention components for this population and supports the need for further systematic evaluation of the intervention program.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations74
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChildren s Health CareSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207