“There Is No Before Cancer… There Is Only Cancer.” Perceived Late Effects of Pediatric Cancer on Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although "late effects" connotes experiencing effects later in life, they can emerge immediately after active treatment. The effects that survivors experience have been reported but rarely from the point of view of the survivors regarding their life after treatment. OBJECTIVE: To examine the perceived late effects of pediatric cancer on survivors and their self-identified primary support persons in order to understand the multifaceted nature of living after a pediatric cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Using a pragmatic interpretive phenomenology approach, 10 survivors of pediatric cancer (aged 21-28 years) and 9 of their support persons (aged 23-73 years) participated, completing background questionnaires and semistructured, one-on-one interviews. Interview transcripts were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Both survivors and support persons acknowledged that survivors experienced negative physical and cognitive health outcomes that require follow-up care. Survivors acknowledged that their cancer experience and residual effects have changed the trajectory of their lives. CONCLUSIONS: Research on young adult survivors of pediatric cancer and the residual/late effects and emotional outcomes they experience is warranted. Longitudinal research can aid in understanding how effects develop or worsen over time. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The findings of this study support The Children's Oncology Group Long-term Follow-up Guidelines for practitioners. As the frontline caring for these individuals and families, nurses' involvement in transitional care out of treatment is necessary. Continued involvement and understanding of long-term pediatric cancer survivorship for nurses are also imperative for continuity for survivors and families.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".