Effect of Instructing Care Program Through Group Discussion on the Quality of Life of the Parents of the Children Afflicted With Leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Children long-term involvement with cancer may have a negative impact on the quality of life their parents. Design and implementation of training programs for parents whose children have been diagnosed with leukemia, as the primary caregivers of children, will have a special significance and can contribute to better taking care of such children. The main purpose of the present study was to examine the impact of conducting group discussion, as care program training, on the quality of life parents whose children were suffering from leukemia. METHODS: This quasi-experimental before-after intervention study encompassed two groups of parents (in total 41) of leukemia children. To collect data, a demographic questionnaire and the shortened version of SF-36 questionnaire were used to determine the quality of life of parents. Both groups completed the quality of life questionnaires before and two months after the intervention. RESULTS: Comparison of the parents' quality of life mean scores, obtained before and two months after training, showed that promotion in 6 domains of bodily pain, general health, emotional health, role limitation due to emotional problems, social functioning, and vitality were occurred. (P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the important role of parents in taking care of children suffering from leukemia, introduction of care program training can be a positive step to help these parents and empower them to manage their children's problems more systematically and will ultimately lead to improved quality of life of parents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".