MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202661419 · doi:10.1177/13674935211043680

Growth in the face of overwhelming pressure: A narrative review of sibling donor experiences in pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant

2021· review· en· W3202661419 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Winther Klippenstein, Caroline C. Piotrowski, Janice Winkler, Christina West

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Health Care · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialSiblingCINAHLPsycINFOPosttraumatic growthMedicineAnxietyDonationDistressNarrativePsychologyClinical psychologyMEDLINEDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sibling donation in pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) can be emotionally distressing for children, but may simultaneously evoke positive emotions, and has the potential to facilitate personal growth. We conducted a narrative review of sibling donor experiences, which included an analysis of psychosocial distress and post-traumatic growth (PTG). We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and SCOPUS. Search concepts used to develop key terms included HSCT, siblings, children, and psychosocial outcomes. Specific inclusion criteria included a) research articles published in English in peer-reviewed journals until September 2020, and b) reported trauma symptoms and PTG characteristics of sibling donation experiences. Four themes were identified: fear and anxiety related to HLA testing, overwhelming pressure to donate, guilt and blame when the ill child died, as well as emotional and physical isolation following donation. Sibling responses also included evidence of PTG, articulated as a deepened appreciation for life, closer relationships with the ill child and other family members, increased personal strength, and spiritual growth. These results highlight a critical need for future research approaches that further empower sibling donor voices, such as those found in participatory, arts-based methodologies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child Health CareSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207