MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3149522163 · doi:10.3390/ijerph18073610

Patient and Parent Experiences with Group Telerehabilitation for Child Survivors of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

2021· review· en· W3149522163 on OpenAlexafffund
Geneviève Lambert, Nathalie Alos, Pascal Bernier, Caroline Laverdière, Kenneth Drummond, Noémi Dahan‐Oliel, Martin Lemay, Louis‐Nicolas Veilleux, Dahlia Kairy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec à MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationShriners Hospitals for Children - Canada
FundersRéseau Provincial de Recherche en Adaptation-Réadaptation
KeywordsTelerehabilitationMedicineIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyRehabilitationCancer survivorPediatricsCancerHealth careTelemedicinePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) is the most common pediatric cancer. ALL and its treatment cause altered bone-mineral homeostasis, which can contribute to musculoskeletal late adverse effects (LAEs). With the increasing number of childhood cancer survivors, LAEs are reported often, and are aggravated by inactive lifestyles. A telerehabilitation program is proposed to strengthen the muscle-bone complex and prevent future impairment. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore and better understand patient and parent experience of a telerehabilitation program after completion of ALL treatment. METHODS: = 12), 75% girls, 7.9 to 14.7 years old, within six months to five years of treatment, were recruited to participate in the proposed study, along with a parent. The 16-week group program included 40 potential home-based physical activities, with monthly progression, supervised by a kinesiologist, through an online telerehabilitation platform. Patients could be included in the study if they joined during the first month of intervention of their group (minimum 12 weeks of intervention). A semi-structured post-intervention interview was conducted with the patients and their parent during the final assessment, along with a review of the kinesiologist's clinical notes, to obtain a portrait of the participants' experience with the telerehabilitation program. Overarching themes were identified by one author and confirmed by two senior authors before extracting the various aspects of each theme. RESULTS: Of the 12 patients recruited, three were excluded from the analysis because they did not complete the minimum 12 weeks of intervention (one = relapse, one = failure to meet technical requirements, and one = abandoned due to parent's disinterest). The nine patients who completed the program (six girls; 10.93 ± 2.83 years) had a mean adherence of 89%. The overarching themes identified were the program modalities (group approach with patient-parent paired training, supervised by a kinesiologist), the telerehabilitation system, the participants' perception of the benefits, and recommendations and suggestions from the families. Both patients and parents expressed very high satisfaction with the program and perceived benefits. CONCLUSION: Participants appreciated the program and reported they would all recommend it to other families in similar situations. The telerehabilitation method of service delivery was perceived by some as decisive in choosing to participate, while the supervision and intra- and inter-family interactions were the motivating factors that were key to program adherence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→