Impact of caring for a child with cancer on single parents compared with parents from two‐parent families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is currently unknown how the intensive and often prolonged treatment of childhood cancer impacts on the lives of single parents. Our aims were to determine whether single parents differ from parents from two-parent families in terms of caregiver demand (the time and effort involved in caregiving), and health-related quality of life (HRQL). PROCEDURES: Forty single parents and 275 parents from two-parent families were recruited between November 2004 and February 2007 from five pediatric oncology centers in Canada. Parents were asked to complete a questionnaire booklet composed of items and scales to measure caregiver demand and HRQL (SF-36). The booklet also measured the following constructs: background and context factors, child factors, caregiving strain, intrapsychic factors, and coping factors. RESULTS: Single parents did not differ from parents from two-parent families in caregiving demand and physical and psychosocial HRQL. Compared with Canadian population norms for the SF-36, both groups reported clinically important differences (i.e., worse health) in psychosocial HRQL (effect size ≥ -2.00), while scores for physical HRQL were within one standard deviation of population norms. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the impact of caregiving on single parents, in terms of caregiving demand and HRQL is similar to that of parents from two-parent families.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".