Exploring predictors of optimism among parents of children with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore predictors of optimism in parents of children with cancer. METHODS: A cross-sectional multi-centre study of 411 parents of children in active treatment for cancer was conducted. The Life Orientation Test-Revised was used to assess optimism. Other appropriate items and standardized questionnaires were used to assess parent and child characteristics. Predictors of optimism were explored using simple and multiple linear regression modelling techniques. RESULTS: The presence of positive intrapsychic traits, such as self-esteem and mastery, was more predictive of parental optimism than factors related to child cancer, such as the child's prognosis. Intrapsychic traits combined with an absence of parental depression, the parents' perception of the child's prognosis and parent education level predicted over 50% of the variance in parent optimism. Correlations between parents' and oncologists' view of the child's prognosis were low. CONCLUSIONS: Positive intrapsychic traits are important predictors of optimism in the presence of a parent's positive view of the child's prognosis and higher education levels in the absence of depression. The results also favour the perspective of optimism as a trait of the parent who is resilient to a life stressor, such as dealing with childhood cancer. Additional knowledge about the role of optimism in caregiving for a child with cancer is needed before it can be explored for assessment or intervention purposes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".