Health-Related Quality of Life and Well-Being in Parents of Infants and Toddlers with Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The unique psychosocial needs of parents and caregivers of young children with cancer are poorly understood. The aims of the present study were to examine health-related quality of life (HRQOL), stress, and psychological distress in parents of young children (0–4 years) diagnosed with cancer; and the associations between parent psychosocial functioning and child treatment characteristics. Methods: Parents (n = 35) with a child (n = 19 male, 54.3%) 0–48 months of age (median: 31.06 months) on active cancer therapy were recruited. Parents completed questionnaires related to demographics, parent HRQOL, parenting stress, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and parent psychological distress. Results: Parents reported clinically elevated parenting stress (5.9%), posttraumatic stress symptoms (18.2%), and psychological distress (21.9%). Compared with population norms, parents reported lower HRQOL in the vitality (t = 5.37, p < 0.001), mental health (t = 4.02, p < 0.001), role limitation–emotional (t = 3.52, p < 0.001), and general health perceptions (t = 2.25, p = 0.025) domains. Social functioning (β = 0.33, p = 0.041) predicted general health perceptions; vitality (β = 0.30, p = 0.134) and parent mental health (β = 0.24, p = 0.285) did not [F(3,29) = 12.64, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.57]. Conclusions: A subset of parents of young children on active cancer treatment experience clinically elevated psychosocial symptoms. Having poor social connections put parents at risk of perceiving their health more poorly in general. Supports that focus on preventing the emergence of clinically significant distress should focus on parents of young children with cancer who are most at risk of poor outcomes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".