Emotional symptoms and family functioning in caregivers of children with newly diagnosed leukemia/lymphomas and solid tumors: Short‐term changes and related demographic factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric oncology diagnoses are distressing to caregivers. However, researchers have not investigated the impact that the type of cancer diagnosis has on caregiver anxiety, depression, distress, and family functioning. The purpose of this study was to longitudinally investigate the early trajectory of caregiver psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression, distress, and family functioning near diagnosis and 6 months later by cancer type, and to examine the demographic factors that may be associated with caregiver emotional and family functioning outcomes. METHODS: Caregivers (n = 122) of children with a recent diagnosis of leukemia/lymphoma or solid tumor completed self-report measures of psychological and family functioning (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Distress Thermometer, and Family Environment Scale). RESULTS: In general, caregivers endorsed elevated psychological symptoms at the time of diagnosis, which decreased 6 months later. Caregivers of children with solid tumors endorsed greater anxiety across time than caregivers of children with leukemia/lymphoma did. In addition to caring for a child with a solid tumor, female sex, non-White ethnicity, and non-English language spoken in the home were factors associated with anxious and depressive symptoms and poorer family functioning. CONCLUSION: When creating psychosocial interventions for families of children with cancer, the unique demands of solid tumor treatments, the caregiver's sex, and cultural characteristics must be considered to promote coping, resiliency, and problem-solving skills around the time of diagnosis, particularly in more vulnerable 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".