The Healthcare Professionals’ and Patient Advocates’ Perspectives on the Care for Children with Cancer in Europe—A Report from the ESCALIER Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer in children and adolescents is rare. Therefore, experienced multidisciplinary teams of health care professionals and input from patient advocates are needed. Within the ESCALIER project, we present the current situation of care for children and adolescents with cancer in Europe from the perspective of these stakeholders and highlight the topics relevant for them. A survey developed by representatives from the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE) and Childhood Cancer International-Europe (CCI-E) was sent to European paediatric oncologists and patient organizations. We analysed all six questions related to general aspects of care and ten questions especially relevant for SIOPE or CCI-E using descriptive statistics. In total, 159 paediatric oncologists from 35 European countries and 41 CCI-E member organizations from 30 countries replied. Six of the ten questions selected by SIOPE and CCI-E representatives were identical and covered topics from diagnosis to end of treatment and follow-up care. This highlights the alignment of topics relevant for both stakeholders. However, the answers provided by SIOPE and CCI-E respondents to the same questions differed to varying degrees, and answers also differed between respondents from the same country. The differences in the answers provided to our survey highlight the need to raise awareness, improve knowledge, and strengthen communication between different stakeholders, organisations, patients, and families. The stakeholders' different experiences and knowledge must be considered, and can thus strengthen common goals to provide the best possible care to children and adolescents with cancer in Europe.
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".