Evaluating family‐centred service in paediatric oncology with the measure of processes of care (MPOC‐20)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In order to evaluate the family-centeredness of paediatric oncology services, a psychometrically sound measure of family-centred services is needed. We performed a comprehensive evaluation of the psychometric properties of the 20-item Measure of Processes of Care (MPOC-20) in parents of children undergoing treatment for cancer at five paediatric oncology centres in Canada. METHODS: The sample included 411 parents (80% response rate). Exploratory factor analysis was used to determine the best way to group the items into scales. Psychometric tests were used to examine data quality, targeting, internal consistency reliability, within-scale construct validity and known-groups validity. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis identified two factors: a summary measure of family-centred services and a scale measuring activities that meet parents' general informational needs. Scores spanned the entire scale range, floor and ceiling effects were low, and the sample distribution was not unduly skewed. Scales showed acceptable internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alphas > or =0.93). Known-group hypotheses supported the scales' ability to differentiate between groups hypothesized to differ. Moderate effect sizes were found when MPOC-20 scale scores for parents and for children with good quality of life were compared with those with poor quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The MPOC-20 is the only evaluated instrument currently available to measure family-centred services in paediatric oncology. Paediatric cancer programmes can now use this tool to determine parental perception of the extent to which services are family-centred.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".