Psychological distress in grandparents of grandchildren who survived childhood cancer − Results from the GROkids project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionHaving a grandchild who survived childhood cancer might affect grandparents’ mental health. We aimed to A) describe the psychological distress of grandparents of childhood cancer survivors (CCS) and compare their distress to the Swiss general population, and B) explore the associations between the psychological distress of grandparents with person-, child-, and cancer-related characteristics.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional study conducted in Switzerland. Grandparents were identified from families of eligible CCS (cancer diagnosis before 18 years old; 3-10 years after diagnosis). A subsample of a representative sample for the Swiss general population was used for comparison similar in age, gender and language region. The Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18) was administered to assess psychological distress on three domains: somatization, depression, anxiety; and a Global Severity Index [GSI]. We run Chi-squared and t-tests to compare grandparents and comparisons, and univariable, multivariable and multilevel regressions to analyze associations.ResultsIn total, 122 grandparents (60.7% female, mean age=72.8; SD=6.8) and 354 comparisons participated (55.4% female; mean age=65.7; SD=5.5). Grandparents reported average distress levels and their scores did not differ significantly from the comparison sample (all p>.05). Grandparents with worse health perception described more psychological distress (somatization: β=6.86, p<.001; depression: β=4.17 p<.001; anxiety: β=5.87, p<.001; GSI: β=6.30, p<.001), while single grandparents experienced more depression than those in a partnership (β=-6.21, p=.013).DiscussionOur findings are encouraging, showing adequate psychological health among grandparents of CCS. However, grandparents who perceived their health as poorer encounter higher levels of distress and may benefit from access to support groups and tailored informational material.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".