A summary of high quality online information resources for parents with cancer who have adolescent and young adult children: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Parents with cancer want information about maintaining family functioning despite cancer. This scoping review assesses what online information resources are available to help parents with cancer maintain family functioning, the quality of the available information, and whether resources provide specific advice for parents of adolescent and young adult (AYA) children. METHODS: To identify available relevant English-language online information resources, we imitated a parental online information search using three search engines (Google, Yahoo, and Bing). Online resources from the last 10 years for parents with cancer addressing family functioning were included. These resources were rated using the DISCERN instrument-a tool for rating the reliability and quality of health information resources. RESULTS: 684 results were screened and 33 online information resources from the USA, UK, Australia, Canada, and Ireland met the inclusion criteria. Average DISCERN quality was 54/80 (95% CI:50-58), which is typical for online health information. The highest rated resources provided information for parents on supporting their AYA children's needs for information and support with feelings, but few comprehensively covered other specific AYA needs. Details on resource weaknesses as identified by the DISCERN are presented. CONCLUSIONS: Several high-quality resources for parents with cancer were identified from multiple countries, allowing health professionals internationally to direct patients with cancer to relevant high quality online information. Highlighted limitations in resource quality and scope will guide future resource development and revision, ensuring more comprehensive high quality information is available to support families affected by parental cancer internationally.
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 | 0.020 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".