Disparities in parental distress in a multicenter clinical trial for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parent psychological distress during childhood cancer treatment has short- and long-term implications for parent, child, and family well-being. Identifying targetable predictors of parental distress is essential to inform interventions. We investigated the association between household material hardship (HMH), a modifiable poverty-exposure defined as housing, food, or utility insecurity, and severe psychological distress among parents of children aged 1-17 years with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) enrolled on the multicenter Dana-Farber ALL Consortium Trial 16-001. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of parent-reported data. Parents completed an HMH survey within 32 days of clinical trial enrollment (T0) and again at 6 months into therapy (T1). The primary exposure was HMH at T0 and primary outcome was severe parental distress at T0 and T1, defined as a score greater than or equal to 13 on the Kessler-6 Psychological Distress Scale. Multivariable models were adjusted for ALL risk group and single parent status. RESULTS: Among 375 evaluable parents, one-third (32%; n = 120/375) reported HMH at T0. In multivariable analyses, T0 HMH was associated with over twice the odds of severe psychological distress at T0 and T1 HMH was associated with over 5 times the odds of severe distress at T1. CONCLUSIONS: Despite uniform clinical trial treatment of their children at well-resourced pediatric centers, HMH-exposed parents-compared with unexposed parents-experienced statistically significantly increased odds of severe psychological distress at the time of their child's leukemia diagnosis, which worsened 6 months into therapy. These data identify a high-risk parental population who may benefit from early psychosocial and HMH-targeted interventions to mitigate disparities in well-being.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".