“It’s Just for Us!” Perceived Benefits of Participation in a Group Intervention for Siblings of Children With Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This qualitative substudy aimed to investigate the outcomes of sibling group interventions from the perspective of siblings of children with cancer and their caregivers. Method: Siblings were randomized to receive the Siblings Coping Together intervention (SibCT) or attention control (CG). In all, 30 participants, 18 siblings (average age = 11.89 years, 9 CG and 9 SibCT) and 12 caregivers (4 CG and 8 SibCT), were interviewed following group participation. SibCT consists of eight 2-hr manualized sessions delivered weekly; in each session, it combines arts and crafts and cognitive-behavioral strategies structured around a specific theme (family or school). The CG is structured only around arts and crafts. Interviews were analyzed using content analysis. Results: Themes common to both groups included the following: having a group just for siblings, improving family relationships, and feeling reassured of parental role. Themes unique to the SibCT group included the following: learning program targets, increasing self-confidence, feeling less different, and connecting caregivers and siblings through homework. Themes unique to the control group included the following: being a good helper and being in the hospital for positive reasons. Conclusion: This study uncovered additional intervention effects not captured in quantitative measures. Whereas benefits were noted in both groups and speak to the importance of support for siblings in general, positive personal and relational changes unique to siblings in the SibCT group and their caregivers support the importance of specific interventions focused on problem-solving siblings' issues.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".