Children Receiving Chemotherapy at Home: Perceptions of Children and Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this descriptive exploratory study was to determine the perspectives of parents and children with cancer on a home chemotherapy program. Qualitative analyses were used to organize data from 24 parents and 14 children into emerging themes. Themes included (1) financial and time costs, (2) disruption to daily routines, (3) psychological and physical effects, (4) recommendations and caveats, and (5) preference for home chemotherapy. When home chemotherapy was compared with hospital clinic-based chemotherapy, parents reported fewer financial and time costs and less disruption to their work and family schedules, and children reported more time to play/study, improved school attendance, and engagement in normal activities. Although some parents felt more secure with hospital chemotherapy, most found it more exhausting and stressful. At home, children selected places for their treatment and some experienced fewer side effects. Although some coordination/communication problems existed, the majority of parents and children preferred home chemo-therapy. Home chemotherapy treatment is a viable, acceptable, and positive health care delivery alternative from the perspective of parents and children 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".