Interventions to improve the aftercare of survivors of childhood cancer: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review summarizes the evidence for the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving the experiences and outcomes for childhood cancer survivors (CCS). We performed a structured literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINHAL, ERIC, and PsychoInfo from 1995 to 2017. Studies were included if they (1) described or evaluated a psychosocial, transition, educational, physical activity, or health behavior modification intervention provided to childhood cancer survivors (CCS); (2) presented original empirical research; (3) were published between January 1, 1995 and September 13, 2017; and (4) were full articles, published in English. Twenty-nine articles met our inclusion criteria. The articles covered five main types of interventions: social skills development, physical activity, workbooks, education, and web-based interventions. Study participants found that overall interventions were useful and showed potential to improve health behaviors for CCS. Many of the interventions reviewed were helpful to patients and their families; however, most were at a pilot project stage and evidence for their long-term effectiveness was limited across all studies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".