MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Paucity of core palliative care elements available to children with cancer at end-of-life: Perspectives of bereaved parents and clinicians.

2012· article· en· W2591302822 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alisha Kassam, Sharifa Habib, Julia Skiadaresis, Sarah Alexander, Joanne Wolfe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePalliative careFamily medicinePediatric oncologySiblingChildhood cancerQuality of life (healthcare)CancerPediatric cancerNursingPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9076 Background: Recognition of serious deficits in palliative care for children has prompted hospitals to develop specialized pediatric palliative care programs. However, only a minority of children who die from advanced cancer receive services from these dedicated programs. We aimed to determine which elements of palliative care are considered important according to bereaved parents and pediatric oncology clinicians and to determine availability of these elements. Methods: We administered questionnaires to 75 bereaved parents (response rate 53%) and 48 pediatric oncology clinicians (response rate 91%) at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada. The main outcome measures were importance ratings and availability of core elements of palliative care delivery based on the National Quality Forum clinical practice guidelines for quality palliative care. Results: Fifteen of the twenty-one core elements were highly valued by both parents and clinicians (defined as > 60% of parents and clinicians reporting the item as important). When compared to clinicians, parents gave higher importance ratings to receiving cancer-directed therapy during the last month of life (p = 0.007) and involvement of a religious or spiritual mentor (p = 0.03). Clinicians gave higher importance ratings to involvement of a social worker (p < 0.0001). Notably, of the valued elements, only three of them were available greater than 60% of the time according to clinicians and parents. Valued elements least likely to be available included a direct admission policy to hospital, involvement of a religious or spiritual mentor, sibling support and parent preparation for medical aspects surrounding death. Conclusions: Children with advanced cancer are not receiving key elements of palliative care despite both parents and clinicians recognizing them as important. Evaluation of barriers to provision of quality palliative care and strategies for overcoming them is critical.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→