How Effective Are Spiritual Care and Body Manipulation Therapies in Pediatric Oncology? A Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of cancer and associated treatments have a considerable impact on the well-being and quality of life of pediatric oncology patients. To support children and their families, complementary and alternative medicines are seen by nurses and doctors as practical to integrate to the services offered by hospitals. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to examine if the practice of complementary and alternative medicine, specifically spiritual care and treatments based on body manipulation, is likely to improve the health and well-being of children suffering from cancer. METHOD: This objective is achieved through a systematic review of the literature. The level of evidence associated with each practice of complementary and alternative medicine was assessed according to the methodological design used by the studies reviewed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Studies reviewed are of a methodological quality that could be described as fair due to the small sample size of patients and the existence of a number of biases in the conduct and analysis of these studies. However, results obtained are consistent from one study to another, allowing us to make certain recommendations. It is thus advisable to consider the introduction of hypnotherapy in pediatric oncology services. Based on the data collected, it is the complementary and alternative medicine with the most evidence in favor of effectiveness of the well-being of pediatric oncology patients, especially during painful procedures. It is also recommended to use art therapy and music therapy. Conversely, too little evidence is present to be able to recommend the use of acupuncture, chiropractic or osteopathy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".