Identifying domains of quality of life in children with cancer undergoing palliative care: A qualitative study with professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of pediatric palliative care (PPC) is to maintain the quality of life (QoL) of children whose lives are threatened. However, there are sparse scientific data on the domains of QoL in this particular context, and no measurement strategies are available. The present study aims to describe the domains of QoL in the context of PPC in oncology, according to the perceptions of professional caregivers. METHOD: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a random sample of 20 professional caregivers from the Division of Hematology/Oncology at Le Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine (Montréal, Canada). The caregivers were asked about their perceptions about the QoL of the children they have cared for in this context. The data were analyzed using inductive thematic content analysis. RESULTS: The analysis allowed us to identify seven domains of QoL: "physical comfort," "alleviation of psychological suffering," "fun and the present moment," "sense of control," "feeling valued and appreciated," "feeling that life goes on," and "meaningful social relationships." SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Caregivers recount the regard that should be accorded to maintaining well-being and a sense of fun, as well as fostering the child's abilities, taking account of the progression of the disease, and to fulfilling his or her needs, especially social ones. Our results also demonstrate that all domains were positively referred to by professional caregivers. The data from our study will lead to better assessment of QoL according to the trajectory of a child with advanced cancer while undergoing PPC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".