Parent Attributions About Child Symptoms Related to Cancer Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Symptom assessment is an emergent area of research in pediatric cancer. Our team previously reported on the development of a questionnaire to be completed by parents to determine symptom prevalence and bother. This exploratory study examined parental nonprobed, free-text comments about their child's treatment-related symptoms reported on the questionnaire. METHOD: Participants were parents of children aged 4 to 18 years who had been diagnosed with cancer at least 2 months prior to enrolment and had received intravenous chemotherapy within the past month at 1 of 5 pediatric cancer centers. The questionnaire consisted of 69 or 71 items (based on child's age) addressing physical and psychological sequelae. Each symptom query was accompanied by a blank space in which parents could comment on their response. Comments were analyzed guided by content analysis methodology. RESULTS: Five major themes emerged: parental attributions for the symptoms experienced in their child; coping patterns and communication styles within the family; evidence of anticipatory, procedural, and other anxieties; interruption of daily life; and changes in the child's physical appearance. CONCLUSIONS: These exploratory findings provide context to parental perception of their child's treatment-related symptoms and may contribute to a better understanding of parental perception of child and the family coping and communicating style. These findings may assist in the development of psychoeducational interventions aimed at promoting open communication styles within the family and reducing child and parent burden during treatment procedures.
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 | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".