Parent–Child Communication and Adjustment Among Children With Advanced and Non-Advanced Cancer in the First Year Following Diagnosis or Relapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To examine parent-child communication (i.e., openness, problems) and child adjustment among youth with advanced or non-advanced cancer and comparison children. Methods: Families (n = 125) were recruited after a child's diagnosis/relapse and stratified by advanced (n = 55) or non-advanced (n = 70) disease. Comparison children (n = 60) were recruited from local schools. Children (ages 10-17) reported on communication (Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale) with both parents, while mothers reported on child adjustment (Child Behavior Checklist) at enrollment (T1) and one year (T2). Results: Openness/problems in communication did not differ across groups at T1, but problems with fathers were higher among children with non-advanced cancer versus comparisons at T2. Openness declined for all fathers, while changes in problems varied by group for both parents. T1 communication predicted later adjustment only for children with advanced cancer. Conclusions: Communication plays an important role, particularly for children with advanced cancer. Additional research with families affected by life-limiting conditions is needed.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".