Children’s Experiences of Cancer Care: A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: Improvements in pediatric cancer survival have increased interest in the experiences of children undergoing treatment; however, no review of the qualitative literature describing these experiences has been conducted. LITERATURE SEARCH: Databases were searched from January 2000 to January 2016 for qualitative studies describing the experience of children with cancer aged 18 years or younger. DATA EVALUATION: Two reviewers assessed abstracts for relevance and rated reporting comprehensiveness. Participant quotations and descriptions of participants' comments and behaviors were coded. Coded data were pooled to provide a thematic synthesis. SYNTHESIS: 51 studies were included. Five themes were identified. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Results provide data related to the experience of children with cancer that can inform practice changes and research activities aimed at enhancing quality of life.
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it