Bereaved Parents and Siblings Offer Advice to Health Care Providers and Researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine how to improve care for families by obtaining their advice to health care providers and researchers after a child's death from cancer. DESIGN: Families with a surviving sibling (age, 8 to 17 y) were recruited from cancer registries at 3 hospitals in the United States and Canada 3 to 12 months (M=10.4, SD=3.5) after the child's death. SETTING: Data were collected in the home. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (N=99) included 36 mothers, 24 fathers, and 39 siblings from 40 families. OUTCOME MEASURES: Each participant completed a qualitative interview that was audio recorded, transcribed, and coded for thematic content. FINDINGS: Five major themes included the need for: (a) improved communication with the medical team, (b) more compassionate care, (c) increased access to resources, (d) ongoing research, and (e) offering praise. Interwoven within the 5 themes was a subtheme of continuity of care. CONCLUSIONS: Many participants were pleased with the care the child with cancer received, but others noted areas in need of improvement, particularly medical communication and continuity of care. Additional research is needed to inform interventions to improve services for families of children with life-limiting conditions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".