Quality of Life in Survivors of Pediatric Cancer and Their Siblings: The Consensus Between Parent‐Proxy and Self‐Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the discrepancy between survivor-parent and sibling-parent reports of health-related quality of life (HRQL) and the level of agreement (i.e., correlation) between child reports (i.e., survivor and sibling) and parent-proxy reports of HRQL. METHODS: Fifty-one families participated. Pediatric cancer survivors (49% male; 6-18 years of age) and one sibling (47% male; 9-18 years of age) completed a measure of their HRQL. As well, one parent (14% male; 27-65 years of age) from each family completed a proxy report of their children's (i.e., survivor and sibling) HRQL. Consensus was determined through discrepancy and agreement scores, between parent-proxy and children's (i.e., survivors and siblings) self-reports of total HRQL, and physical, emotional, social, and school functioning subscales. RESULTS: Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed significant group differences for total HRQL (F = 6.79, P ≤ 0.01). Repeated-measure ANOVAs of subscale discrepancy scores revealed significant group differences for physical functioning scores (F = 6.39, P < 0.01). A significant interaction was also found for social functioning when age at diagnosis was considered as a covariate (F = 10.30, P < 0.01). Zero-order and intraclass correlation coefficients revealed different levels of agreement between parent and child reports. Specifically, there was poorer agreement between parent-proxy and sibling's self-reports, particularly on social and emotional subscales. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancy and agreement are both important indices to consider when examining consensus between parent-proxy and child self-reports. The findings from this study have important implications for future research and suggest that the impact of cancer on siblings should be further investigated.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".