“Tell it as it is”: How Sisom prompts children and parents to discuss their cancer experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Sisom is an interactive computerized tool shown to improve communication between children with cancer and their clinicians in Norway. Concerns that Sisom may prompt disclosure of potentially distressful symptoms during a busy clinical day may deter implementation in practice in other settings. Aim The purpose of this study was to describe the questions, concerns, and comments that unfolded between children and their parents during the children's use of Sisom within a research context. Methods A secondary analysis of qualitative interview transcripts derived from the interactions of 39 children with cancer aged 6 to 13 years with Sisom from two previous studies was performed. Thirty‐one of these interactions had at least one parent present during testing. Data were coded and analyzed using content analysis techniques involving an iterative process of data reduction, display, conclusion drawing, and verification. Results Sisom elicited a verbal response to at least one symptom in the majority of children (n = 33, 85%) and prompted at least one input in 23 of the parents (74%). Sisom prompted children to (1) discuss their thoughts and feelings out loud, (2) categorize their symptoms as pleasant or unpleasant, and (3) reflect on their illness experiences with varying degrees of certainty. Parental input consisted of (1) providing clarification, (2) validating their child's responses, (3) guiding their child's responses, (4) responding on behalf of their child, and (5) making jokes or casual remarks. Conclusion Sisom prompts children to discuss their thoughts and illness experiences with their parents and to express their emotions. Sisom may be a useful tool to enhance the communication between children with cancer and their parents and clinicians, which may help them express their needs in the health care setting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".