“You can only take so much, and it took everything out of me”: Coping strategies used by parents of children with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study qualitatively assesses the coping strategies of parents who care for a child with cancer. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 28 French and English families who had had a child diagnosed with cancer in the last ten years in two Eastern Canadian provinces. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded with a focus on parental coping strategies. RESULTS: Using coping behaviors as described and categorized in the Family Adjustment and Adaptation Response (FAAR) model as a foundation, we found that families used a variety of appraisal-, emotion-, and problem-focused coping. Appraisal-focused coping strategies involved trying to stay "positive" and "making positive comparisons." Problem-focused coping involved behaviors such as being an advocate for the child and seeking information. The majority of parents, however, described using emotion-focused coping behaviors such as trying to avoid "feeling too much" by hiding difficult emotions and "escaping" from problems. Others used more positive emotion-focused coping behaviors such as humor, seeking support (informal or formal), or writing diaries. A small group of parents used ineffective coping strategies (alcohol abuse, misdirected anger) that added to family stress. These ineffective strategies have led to a modification of the FAAR model indicating that not all coping behaviors are beneficial to family adjustment in crisis. Overall, many parents felt that their coping strategies were effective; however, a few described having a complete "coping breakdown". SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Parents used a range of coping strategies of which emotion-focused coping was the most prominent. We have enhanced the FAAR model by including additional coping behaviors as well as a description of how some coping behaviors add to the daily stressors for parents dealing with a child's illness. Professional health care providers need to understand the variability of the coping behaviors in order to appropriately assist parents to avoid coping breakdowns.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".