Balancing Illness and Parental Demands: Coping With Cancer While Raising Minor Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To explore the cancer experience of parents and their perceptions of supportive strategies to assist them with illness- and family-related challenges. DESIGN: Qualitative, descriptive design. SETTING: A large McGill University-affiliated hospital cancer care center in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Five mothers and seven fathers aged 33-67 years with a first cancer diagnosis who received treatment at the cancer clinic within the previous year. Participants had to have at least one minor child living with them. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: Semistructured, audio-recorded interviews. FINDINGS: Three main categories emerged. CONCLUSIONS: Coping with cancer while raising children requires delicate balancing of illness and parenting demands. Tangible support systems must include access to childcare services, home healthcare services, and transportation solutions. INTERPRETATION: Support for parenting needs is a key component of comprehensive cancer care. Oncology nurses should stay informed of all hospital, clinic, and community resources to facilitate access for parents. Unmet support needs indicate that improvements need to be made in access to medical appointments around family schedules, expanded resources for children, and reduction of wait times.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".