Psychosocial standards of care for children with cancer and their families: A national survey of pediatric oncology social workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2015, an interdisciplinary group of psychosocial experts developed The Standards of Psychosocial Care for Children with Cancer and Their Families. This paper presents data from a national survey of pediatric oncology social workers and their experiences in delivering psychosocial care to children and families. In total, 107 social workers from 81 cancer institutions participated in a 25-item online survey that mirrored the 15 Standards for Psychosocial Care. Both closed and open-ended questions were included. Social work participants reported that psychosocial support is being provided at most cancer centers surveyed, primarily by social workers and child life specialists, addressing adaptation to the cancer diagnosis, treatment, and transitions into survivorship or end-of-life care and bereavement. While social workers reported offering comprehensive services throughout the cancer trajectory, many of the 2015 Standards are not being systematically implemented. Areas for improvement include funding for psychosocial support staff and programs, incorporation of standardized assessment measures, assessment for financial burden throughout treatment and beyond, consistent access to psychology and psychiatry, integrated care for parents and siblings, and more inclusion of palliative care services from time of diagnosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".