MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2484855820 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2016-3479

Abstract 3479: Parental coping to retinoblastoma at the onset of diagnosis: A global study

2016· article· en· W2484855820 on OpenAlexaff
Trillium Chang, Yan Zhang, Chengyue Zhang, Junyang Zhao, Khairi Yi, Helen Dimaras

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetinoblastomaCoping (psychology)Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleFatalismAnxietyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Retinoblastoma is the most common ocular malignancy of childhood. At the onset of retinoblastoma diagnosis, parents must learn about retinoblastoma and its complex management, while managing concerns around their child's health and wellbeing. Coping methods are action-oriented efforts to manage, master, tolerate, reduce or minimize the demands of a stressful environment, such as a cancer diagnosis in the family. The purpose of this study was to assess parental coping to the diagnosis of retinoblastoma in their child. The study also aimed to identify factors that assist and/or detract from parental ability to cope. Methodology: Eligible study participants included parents or guardians of children diagnosed with retinoblastoma who were present during the child's retinoblastoma diagnosis and treatment. Study participants completed a print (China, Mandarin language) or online (North America, English language) questionnaire that collected: 1) basic demographic information and information pertaining to the child's retinoblastoma diagnosis; 2) responses to the Mini Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale (Mini-MAC), a validated scale that assesses coping by measuring levels of helplessness/hopelessness, anxious preoccupation, fighting spirit, avoidance and fatalism; 3) responses to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), a validated scale that determines the levels of anxiety and depression experienced by the participant; and 4) additional information on health literacy, self-determination and social support. Coping strategies assessed by the Mini-MAC that correlated with low HADS scores were deemed adaptive (i.e. factors that aided in coping), while methods that correlated with high HADS scores were maladaptive (i.e. factors that detracted from coping). All models were analyzed with multivariate linear regression and significance was set at p<0.05. Results: A total of 153 retinoblastoma parents participated in the study; 30.7% (47/153) were from North America and 69.3% (106/153) were from China. Chinese parents tended to have a lower correlation with anxiety and depression (R = 0.51) than North American parents (R = 0.71). For the North American cohort, high scores for helplessness/hopelessness and anxious preoccupation appeared to be maladaptive, as they correlated with increased anxiety and depression. In contrast, the Chinese cohort demonstrated that feelings of helplessness/hopelessness and anxious preoccupation were adaptive, as they correlated with reduced anxiety and depression. For the Chinese cohort, anxious preoccupation was also positively correlated higher parental health literacy. Conclusions: We observed significant differences in coping between North American and Chinese parents of children with retinoblastoma, which may be explained by cultural differences. The results of this study may help healthcare teams better care for the psychosocial needs of families affected by retinoblastoma. Citation Format: Trillium E. Chang, Yan Zhang, Chengyue Zhang, Junyang Zhao, Khairi Yi, Helen Dimaras. Parental coping to retinoblastoma at the onset of diagnosis: A global study. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 3479.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.383 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicOcular Oncology and Treatments→French-language works237,207→