Caregivers’ Quality of Life and Quality of Services for Children with Cancer: A Review from Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Caregivers of cancer patients are exposed to different types of psychosocial stress which influence their quality of life. The purposes of this study were to assess quality of life in caregivers of children with cancer and to investigate the relationship between the caregivers' quality of life and quality of services in the social work section. METHOD: 125 caregivers were recruited. Quality of life was measured by the Iranian version of the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire and data concerning service quality were obtained from the Iranian version of the SERVQUAL questionnaire. FINDINGS: Scores in physical health, psychological status and environmental conditions for caregivers of children with cancer were significantly lower than the general population. There was a negative correlation between the tangible domain of SERVQUAL and the psychological status and environmental conditions of quality of life. The tangible dimension was the only aspect of service quality to predict caregivers' quality of life regarding psychological status and environmental conditions. CONCLUSION: Caregivers of children with a disease are care consumers and, like all consumers, they expect good service. Delivering high quality services consistently is difficult but profitable for a service organization. In other words, trying to deliver more appropriate services than patients expect to receive from their social work care is one of the most reliable ways to promote caregivers' satisfaction and quality of life.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".