Oncology Camp Participation and Psychosocial Health in Children Who Have Lived with Cancer—A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with lived cancer experience encounter adversity, therefore experiences promoting psychosocial health are necessary. This pilot study determined the impact of recreational oncology camps (ROC) on resilience, hope, social support, and mental well-being in youth who have lived with cancer. Youth (6–18 years) with cancer experience enrolled in an 11-day session of ROC (Muskoka, Ontario, Canada) were invited to participate. Participants completed a survey [Children’s Hope Scale (CHS), Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM-R), Social Provisions Scale (SPS-5), and Short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS)] on the first (T1) and last day (T2) of camp, and 3 months post-camp (T3). Repeated-measures ANOVAs evaluated differences in survey scores among time points. Ten participants (14.1 ± 2.5 years) were included in the analysis. CHS scores at T3 were lower than T1 and T2 (F = 9.388, p = 0.008). CYRM-R, SPS-5, and SWEMWBS scores were high but did not differ between time points. Hope decreased 3 months post-camp, suggesting a need for continued psychosocial support. Overall, the ROC environment is associated with positive psychosocial health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".