Participating in a Health Promotion Program in Pediatric Oncology: Perspectives of Children, Adolescents and Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose. Health promotion (HP) programs represent a promising avenue to address the prevention or mitigation of adverse effects of childhood cancer. However, we do not know the most effective way to promote healthy behaviours in pediatric oncology or how families experience HP interventions during the very challenging time of going through childhood cancer. The purpose of this study was to analyse the perspectives of families affected by childhood cancer regarding their behaviour when participating in a HP program. Methods. We undertook a cross-sectional qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Individual interviews were conducted with parents and adolescents sampled within a larger study. Data was analyzed using thematic analysis. Results. Participants reported many barriers to participation including organizational barriers, physical or mental health issues and lack of interest or need. Key facilitators included tailoring of the interventions to individuals’ needs and social support. Most participants reported that the program had a positive impact on their health behaviour practices during cancer treatment and about half mentioned having the intention to modify their health behaviour practices in the long-term. For future implementation, participants suggested adding more educational activities, increasing physical activity sessions and improving the coordination with clinical activities. Conclusion. Participants’ and families’ perspectives allow researchers and clinicians to gain greater insights into how to shape HP programs that will be engaging and effective in promoting healthy behaviours in this population.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".