Advancing Pediatric Oncology Rehabilitation: Survey Findings of Health Professionals’ Perceptions of Barriers to Care and a Framework for Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore pediatric oncology referral practices, gather healthcare providers' perspectives of barriers to access and provision of rehabilitation service across Canada, and inform a framework for action to optimize rehabilitation care and inform future research. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with Canadian healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in pediatric oncology. RESULTS: A total of 54 responses were received, and 34 corresponded to HCPs who refer children with cancer to rehabilitation services. Results suggest that approximately 25% of children are referred to rehabilitation services, primarily when the child presents with, or is at risk of, significant functional disability due to surgery. A primary barrier to service provision identified across HCPs included a lack of funding and resources. Medical professionals further identified a lack of specialized pediatric oncology rehabilitation services, whereas rehabilitation professionals identified the lack of pediatric oncology specific space and equipment. Identified themes from open-ended survey questions include the need for (1) dedicated funding and resources, (2) improved access, and (3) the need for specialized pediatric oncology rehabilitation services. CONCLUSION: Several barriers exist in the Canadian healthcare context that impact the delivery of rehabilitation services for children with cancer. We propose a framework for action to advance clinical care and guide future research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".