Support Experiences and Wishes of Bereaved Parents After the Loss of Their Child to Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The death of a child has a tremendous impact on parents' lives. The experience of parents who have lost a child to cancer may differ from other bereavement experiences, including other childhood and adulthood causes of death, because of the uncertainty of the prognosis, the aggressive treatment, and the potential for regret about treatment decisions. Bereavement care remains scarce, and effective interventions to meet the diverse needs of parents have not been defined. OBJECTIVE: To provide insights on bereaved parents' experiences, their needs, and wishes of support following the loss of their child to cancer. METHODS: We conducted 18 qualitative, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 23 bereaved parents (seven fathers, 16 mothers), and used reflexive thematic analysis to analyze the data. RESULTS: Parents received both informal and professional support. Regarding informal support, parents expressed a high level of ambivalence rooted in grief illiteracy. Parents also recognized their own struggles to express what forms of informal support they would have liked to receive. Support provided by healthcare professionals, institutions, and organizations involved in the children's care or in bereavement was inconsistent due to personnel time constraints, interpersonal relationships, or disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These factors could result in parents not having access to certain forms of support or not receiving long-term support. CONCLUSION: Improving grief literacy may strengthen informal support and make discussions of grief and death less taboo. Institutional policies, training, and networking may help to ensure that support provided by healthcare professionals, institutions, and organizations is less vulnerable to inconsistencies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".