The perceived influence of childhood cancer on the parents' relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: When a child is diagnosed with cancer, parents are faced with many practical and emotional challenges that can significantly affect their relationship. This study explores how having a child with cancer affects the quality of the parents' relationship, categorizes time points and events during the child's treatment when the relationship becomes most stressed and/or strengthened, identifies factors that help couples remain emotionally engaged throughout their child's cancer treatment, and assesses parental interest in a counseling intervention. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, multicenter study conducted via a semistructured self-administered questionnaire that included the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-two parents of children diagnosed between the ages of 1 and 21 participated. Forty percent felt their relationship moved in a negative direction. Diagnosis and relapse of disease were cited as the most individually stressful time points in the disease trajectory, with hospitalizations and relapse being most stressful on the relationship. Participants felt most emotionally connected at diagnosis and least emotionally connected at the start and end of treatment. The majority of couples indicated interest in counseling to address ways to support their relationship. Soon after diagnosis and during treatment was reported as the preferred time to offer these interventions. CONCLUSION: This study identified specific events and parent behaviors that strain the couples' relationship during the childhood cancer trajectory. This information can inform the development of a couple's intervention. Prospective research is needed to better understand how childhood cancer affects caregivers' partnerships through survivorship and beyond.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".