Supporting Parents’ Pain Care Involvement With Their Children With Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Qualitative Interpretive Description
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia experience pain from the disease, treatment, and procedures. Parents can be effective in managing their child's pain, but little is systematically known about how they do this. Appreciative inquiry was used to frame the study within a strengths-based lens and interpretive descriptive methods were used to describe pain sources, parents' pain care role, and key structures supporting parents pain care involvement. Eight paediatric oncology clinic nurses and 10 parents participated. Six key themes per group were identified. Parent themes included establishing therapeutic relationships, relearning how to care for my child, overcoming challenges and recognizing pain, learning parent specific strategies, empowering to take active pain care role, and maintaining relationships. Nurse themes included establishing therapeutic relationships, preparing parents to care for their child, facilitating pain assessment, teaching parents best pain care, empowering parents, and maintaining relationships. These findings can be used to guide clinical practice and future research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".