Through our eyes: A photovoice intervention for adolescents on active cancer treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESEARCH APPROACH: Photovoice, a participatory action research methodology, is a novel and promising intervention for adolescents with cancer. Photovoice was used as an intervention for eliciting and addressing the psychosocial needs of adolescents on active cancer treatment. PARTICIPANTS: Six adolescents, aged thirteen to seventeen years old, who were on active treatment or had completed treatment in the three months prior to recruitment participated in a seven-week photovoice group that took place from March to May 2017. Methodological Approach: Each of the seven sessions was recorded and later transcribed. A content analysis was used to identify themes that were analyzed using an integrated framework developed earlier. The framework broadly categorized the themes into six domains: (i) physical changes, (ii) psychosocial impacts, (iii) short-term social impacts, (iv) long-term social impacts, (v) impacts on holistic well-being, and (vi) informational needs. INTERPRETATION: Photovoice is an effective intervention for eliciting and addressing the psychosocial needs of adolescents on active cancer treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".