MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4235767090 · doi:10.3410/f.14213965.15729069

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Factors affecting treatment choices in paediatric palliative care: comparing parents and health professionals.

2012· dataset· en· W4235767090 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joanne Wolfe, Christina Ullrich

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2012
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)PreferencePalliative careHealth professionalsScale (ratio)Family medicineHealth careVisual analogue scaleNursingPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY AIM: When children with cancer are no longer curable, parents often need to decide between further aggressive treatments or symptom relief alone. Objectives were to: (1) Describe and compare factors influencing parent and healthcare professional (HCP) decision-making regarding the choice between chemotherapy versus supportive care alone in paediatric palliative care; and (2) Describe how these factors influence this choice.METHODS: Participants included parents of children with cancer without a reasonable chance of cure and health care professionals in paediatric oncology. Respondents were asked to indicate the preferred option and to report what factors affected their choice. Each factor was then rated on an importance visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 10. The importance scales were compared between parents and HCPs and the influence of importance ratings on preferred option was examined.RESULTS: A total of 77 parents and 128 health care professionals participated. For parents the median importance scores for hope, increased survival time and child quality of life were rated as most important (VAS score=10). Parents rated these factors to be significantly more important than HCPs. Conversely, HCPs rated financial considerations more important than parents. For HCPs, stronger importance ranking for parent opinion was associated with stronger preference for aggressive chemotherapy.CONCLUSION: Hope, increased survival time and child quality of life are all more important factors to parents when decision-making at end-of-life compared to HCPs. Conversely, HCPs place greater emphasis on the families' financial considerations than parents. Understanding these differences may aid in communication and improve end-of-life care for children with cancer.Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. PMID: 21669517 Funding information This work was supported by: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada Grant ID: 87719

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0810.007

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→