The information needs of relatives of childhood cancer patients and survivors: A systematic review of qualitative evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To synthesize qualitative research on the information needs of relatives of childhood cancer patients and survivors. METHODS: Systematic searches of PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus identified relevant literature. Extracted data were combined using thematic synthesis. Methodological quality was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal tool for qualitative research. RESULTS: The review included 27 publications, with most research focusing on parents or primary caregivers. Five areas of information needs were identified: treatment, medication, and care; general information about cancer; coping and support; follow-up, late effects, and rehabilitation; and parenting and everyday life. Appropriateness of information depended on health care professionals' aptitude, message characteristics, communication setting, and relatives' personal factors. Preferences for form, sources, and timing for information provision varied. CONCLUSION: The review identified information needs, communication barriers, and preferences among caregivers and siblings of childhood cancer patients and survivors, highlighting areas requiring further research and clinical consideration in addressing the identified challenges. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Caregivers and siblings have unique but similar information needs regarding childhood cancer. To ensure that these needs are met, health care professionals could use eHealth and mHealth technologies, assess each family member's knowledge, and create a safe and supportive environment for questions and feedback.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".