Household income and risk‐of‐poverty of parents of long‐term childhood cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Taking care of children diagnosed with cancer affects parents’ professional life and may place the family at risk‐of‐poverty. We aimed to (i) compare the household income and risk‐of‐poverty of parents of childhood cancer survivors (CCS) to parents of the general population, and (ii) identify sociodemographic and cancer‐related factors associated with risk‐of‐poverty. Methods As part of the Swiss Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, we sent a questionnaire to parents of CCS aged 5–15 years, who survived ≥5 years after diagnosis. Information on parents of the general population came from the Swiss Household Panel (parents with ≥1 child aged 5–15 years). Risk‐of‐poverty was defined as having a monthly household income of <4,500 Swiss Francs (CHF) for single parents and <6,000 CHF for parent‐couples. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with risk‐of‐poverty. Results We included parents of 383 CCS and 769 control parent households. Parent‐couples of CCS had a lower household income ( P trend < 0.001) and were at higher risk‐of‐poverty (30.4% vs. 19.3%, P = 0.001) compared to control parent‐couples. Household income and risk‐of‐poverty of single parents of CCS was similar to control single parents. Parents of CCS were at higher risk‐of‐poverty if they had only standard education (OR mother = 3.77 [where OR is odds ratio], confidence interval [CI]: 1.61–8.82; OR father = 8.59, CI: 4.16–17.72) and were from the German language region (OR = 1.99, CI: 1.13–3.50). We found no cancer‐related risk factors. Conclusion Parents of long‐term CCS reported lower household income and higher risk‐of‐poverty than control parents. Support strategies may be developed to mitigate parents’ risk‐of‐poverty in the long term, particularly among parents with lower education.
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 | 0.001 | 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".