Perceptions of the role of the school in providing information and support to adolescent children of women with breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the needs of adolescents of women with breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of adolescents (ages 12-20) about the role of the school in assisting them in dealing with the cancer experience. An exploratory, qualitative study was done to elicit detailed descriptions of adolescent's needs for information and support in response to their mother's breast cancer. A convenience sample of 31 adolescents of women in five illness phases participated in semi-structured interviews. In addition, two focus group interviews were conducted. Interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed and analysed using content analysis techniques. Findings specific to the adolescents' perceptions of the role of the school were discussed according to content, type, amount, timing, provider and quality of information. Support needs were discussed as type of support, source of support, amount, timing and focus. Although school personnel attempted to be supportive and adolescents received generic information about cancer, overall the needs of the adolescents were not adequately addressed. Recommendations for schools and health services in assisting adolescents to cope with this major life experience are made.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".