Parental perceptions of being told their child has cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Finding out that your child has cancer is a devastating experience. How this information is communicated can have a lasting impression on parents receiving the news. The purpose of this study was to assess how well parents recall discussing the diagnosis of cancer and to summarize suggestions for improvement. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed with input from several parents of children previously diagnosed with cancer. All parents of children <18 years of age with a diagnosis of cancer who were >1 month post-diagnosis at our children's hospital were asked to participate. The patient sample was identified through the in- and outpatient clinics from June to August 2006. RESULTS: One-hundred sixteen parents (mothers and fathers) completed the questionnaire, with only two parents refusing (1.7%). The moment of disclosure of the diagnosis was remembered vividly in 77%, well in 20%, and somewhat, vaguely or not at all in 1% each. Parental reaction to the disclosure was viewed as a positive experience 79% of the time and a negative experience 21% of the time. Parents also provided a number of suggestions for future disclosure. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of parents recall receiving the diagnosis and the discussions that ensued about their child's diagnosis of cancer. Most parents were satisfied with their experience with receiving the diagnosis. Suggestions for improvement can be incorporated into future educational indicatives for front line healthcare providers to improve communication of sensitive diagnoses with 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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".