Parent and Health Care Provider Perceptions for Development of a Web-Based Weight Management Program for Survivors of Pediatric Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Survivors of pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) may experience unhealthy weight gain during treatment, which has been associated with higher risk for chronic health issues. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to obtain feedback on weight management in pediatric ALL survivors and on the content and implementation of a Web-based weight management program. METHODS: Study participants included 54 parent survey respondents and 19 pediatric oncology professionals in 4 focus groups. Survey questions included report of child weight status and interest in participating in weight management programming at various time points. Pediatric oncology professionals were asked about the preferred topics and timing, as well as their role. Focus group data were analyzed by a multidisciplinary research team for common themes. RESULTS: The mean age of survivors was 6.5 years. By parent report, 19% of children were overweight and 25% were obese. Preferred timing for weight management program participation was within 3 months of starting maintenance chemotherapy (23/53, 43%) or within 12 months after completion of all cancer treatments (18/53, 34%). Pediatric oncology professionals likewise considered the maintenance phase appropriate. They considered parenting to be an important topic to include and indicated that their most appropriate roles would be promotion and support. CONCLUSIONS: Parents and pediatric oncology professionals are interested in and supportive of early weight management in pediatric ALL survivors. Future research needs to identify strategies to integrate this into pediatric cancer care and to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of these strategies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".