A mixed method approach to describe the out‐of‐pocket expenses incurred by families of children with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Families of children with cancer are confronted with a broad range of direct costs (out-of-pocket expenses), but the nature of these costs is poorly understood. This study aimed to disaggregate and describe these costs. PROCEDURE: A prospective, mixed method, cost-of-illness design was utilized. Starting in the fourth week following their child's diagnosis, parents recorded resources consumed, and costs incurred for 1 week per month for 3 consecutive months. Any additional costs not captured in this typical 1 week period were added for the remainder of the month. Parents also discussed their costs in an audio-taped interview at the end of the 3 months. Descriptive statistics and qualitative content analyses were performed to disaggregate and describe families' costs. RESULTS: In total, 99 families reported utilizing 16 cost categories and 74 cost items. Nearly three quarters of these costs were attributed to travel (56%) and food (18%). Costly items included acquisition of a car ($CAD35,000), relocation of a family ($CAD6,000), and purchase of a wheelchair ($CAD6,800). Parents described facing significant out-of-pocket expenses to ensure that their children had access to cancer treatment, to cope with the clinical treatment side effects of treatment, and to maintain the family household. CONCLUSION: Families of children with cancer experience a wide range of costs. Our understanding of the nature of their costs and resource use may formulate the basis for future cost assessments and provide insight into practice and policy changes aimed at lessening the economic impact of this burden.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".