Post-traumatic stress in parents of long-term childhood cancer survivors compared to parents of the Swiss general population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: We describe post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in parents of long-term childhood cancer survivors (CCS-parents) and compare them to parents of similar-aged children (comparison-parents) of the Swiss general population (SGP). We compare type of reported stressful event, prevalence of PTSS and PTSD, and psychosocial and cancer-related characteristics associated with PTSS. We further describe the respective normative data for the SGP. Methods: We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional questionnaire survey in a population-based sample of long-term CCS-parents (survivors aged ≤16 years at diagnosis, ≥20 years at study, >5 years post-diagnosis) and in the SGP. Using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised , we measured PTSS regarding the most stressful event experienced, and computed probable cases of PTSD. Results: Participants included 663 CCS-parents (39.4% fathers) and 1035 individuals of the SGP (40.0% male), of which we identified 391 comparison-parents (41.2% fathers). Illness was most often indicated as stressful event (CCS-parents: 49.5%, comparison-parents: 27.6%, SGP: 25.3%). Prevalence of PTSS and PTSD (CCS-parents: 4.8%, comparison-parents: 6.7%, SGP: 5.6%) did not significantly differ. Lower education was associated with higher intrusion, avoidance, and hyperarousal in all samples (all P ≤ .003). Parents of children with a chronic illness reported higher intrusion (all P ≤ .004). We found no associations with cancer-related characteristics. Conclusions: No increased risk for PTSS or PTSD was found among CCS-parents. Individuals with lower education and those with a chronically ill child might benefit from additional support to help manage and resolve the stress symptoms in the long term.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".