Caregiving, single parents and cumulative stresses when caring for a child with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Single parents whose children have cancer are a marginalized group who report less family centred care, and therefore, less quality cancer care for their children. As such, the aims of this study were to explore how single parents of children with cancer describe their caregiving experiences and to understand their contextual life stressors. METHODS: A constructivist grounded theory method was used. Qualitative interviews with 29 single parents of children with cancer who were at least 6 months post-diagnosis were recruited between November 2009 and April 2011 from four hospitals across Canada. Line-by-line coding was used to establish codes and themes and constant comparison was used to establish relationships among emerging codes and conceptual themes. RESULTS: The first set of findings report on caregiving duties including: emotional tasks, informational tasks and physical tasks. The second set of findings report on the contextual picture of parent's lives including their living conditions, their physical and mental health and their family histories of disruption, trauma and disease. CONCLUSIONS: Single parents caring for children with cancer were found to experience several cumulative stressors in addition to the current strain of caring for a child with cancer. The synergy of these cumulative stresses with the added strain of caregiving for a child with cancer may have long-term health and financial implications for parents. Broad-based policy interventions should focus on relieving the chronic strains associated with being a single parent of a child with cancer.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".