Perceptions of parents of pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia on oral chemotherapy administration: A qualitative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the experiences and perspectives of parents of pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) regarding oral chemotherapy administration during maintenance therapy. METHODS: English-speaking parents of patients 4 to <18 years who were receiving ALL maintenance oral chemotherapy were eligible to participate in this mixed methods study. Using semi-structured interviews, we asked participants how difficult they found oral chemotherapy administration. We also probed regarding barriers and facilitators of oral chemotherapy administration and strategies used to overcome challenges. Lastly, we asked participants for their advice to future parents giving oral chemotherapy to their children. RESULTS: Twenty-three participants were interviewed. One-fifth of participants stated that oral chemotherapy administration at home was hard or very hard. Common factors influencing oral chemotherapy administration were product-related (e.g., formulation) and treatment-related adverse effects (e.g., nausea), lifestyle adjustment (e.g., fitting in with family schedule), and attitudes (e.g., onus of medication administration). Strategies to address oral chemotherapy administration included several administration techniques, scheduling of medication administration, and normalization of medication taking. CONCLUSIONS: Oral chemotherapy administration during ALL maintenance therapy was hard for some parents. Identification of these parents and discussion of strategies to facilitate adherence to oral chemotherapy regimens may optimize patient 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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".