Self-Perceived Barriers to Pediatric Cancer Care in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Cross-Sectional Multinational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The number of patients with childhood cancer (CC) in sub-Saharan Africa is expected to rise over the coming years. According to the WHO Initiative for Childhood Cancer, access to care is crucial and must be guided by the needs of patients and their families. Our study explored barriers to CC treatment from a patient's perspective to guide the health care providers. METHODS: From February to September 2021, we conducted a multinational cross-sectional study with a sample from nine population-based cancer registries in nine sub-Saharan countries. Inclusion criteria comprised a cancer diagnosis according to the International Classification of Childhood Cancer, age 0-19 years, and year of diagnosis 2017-2019. A questionnaire was administered asking families about self-perceived barriers accessing surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. To assess associated factors, we conducted a multivariable regression analysis presenting the results as odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: A total of 224 patients with CC was included. The fear of treatment effects and the perceived (poor) health of the child were named most frequently as barriers for all treatment modalities (78.9% and 75.5%, respectively). For chemotherapy, respondents who indicated themselves as rich had lower odds of perceiving the (poor) health of the child as a barrier (OR, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.36]). For radiotherapy, long waiting time and (limited) availability in the country were more commonly barriers (OR, 7.53 [95% CI, 3.38 to 16.78]; OR, 11.11 [95% CI, 2.04 to 60.46], respectively) than for chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Despite known barriers such as the availability of therapy, our study additionally indicates the importance of the patients' and families' perceptions of the disease and its treatment. Further expanding measures of social support for affected families should be regarded as one of the main pillars to assure access to care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".