MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409318057 · doi:10.1097/cr9.0000000000000072

Childhood Cancer Survivorship: Nurses in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Poised to Lead

2025· article· en· W4409318057 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julia Challinor

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Care Research Online · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurvivorship curveChildhood cancerLead (geology)CancerCancer survivorshipLow and middle income countriesMedicineEnvironmental healthEconomic growthDeveloping countryEconomicsBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An early example of childhood cancer survivorship surveillance in high-income countries (HIC) began in 1972 with the Late Effects Study Group (LESG), 12 pediatric oncology treatment facilities in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe, sharing data on second malignancies posttreatment.1 By 1983, the first childhood cancer survivorship clinic led by a pediatric oncology nurse practitioner, Wendy Hobbie, RN, MSN, CRNP, FAAN, was established at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in the United States.2 This initiative demonstrated nursing’s inherent role in ensuring that the end of treatment does not mean the end of care and a nurse’s ability to lead this follow-up service. In general, care for children/adolescents with cancer in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), where greater than 80% of this population lives, is focused on disease survival. Comprehensive treatment is challenging, particularly for cancers requiring high-cost chemotherapies, substantial supportive care, or specialized surgery, for example, leukemias and central nervous system tumors. Formal survival surveillance programs are rare mainly due to factors such as shortages of specialized pediatric oncologists and nurses in general, limited training in survivorship care, and nonexistent government financial support. Nevertheless, childhood cancer treatment in many LMIC has long been supported by HIC partners such as French childhood cancer centers (eg, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif), the Francophone-African Group of Pediatric Oncology,3 and St Jude Children’s Research Hospital in the US and centers in Latin America.4 Although in many LMIC, there is a shortage of nurses in general and a lack of specialization training in pediatric oncology nursing, in all but 3 countries, there are significantly more nurses overall than physicians. This means that existing nurses caring for children/adolescents across LMIC are well-positioned to take the lead on survivorship surveillance. They know and have cared for these young patients who have survived cancer. They have a position of trust with the families and in many cases ties to the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), for example, Childhood Cancer International (a parent and survivor NGO in 90 countries5), which have supported the families of these children/adolescents since diagnosis to avoid treatment abandonment. With minimal training, the experienced nurses in many of these LMIC centers can follow the lead of Hobbie and colleagues from years ago and begin to coordinate basic survivorship screening and surveillance following new guidelines for use in limited resource settings.6 Hobbie2 mentions the nursing role in survivorship as clinician-caregiver, educator, and researcher. Although the role of nurse practitioner is not formally recognized in many LMIC, the current nursing workforce in this subspecialty in several countries includes nurses with this scope of practice in acute care settings.7 The time is overdue for the growing population of LMIC childhood cancer survivors to have access to surveillance and support for the physical/mental health and psychosocial consequences of childhood cancer treatment. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3 states “Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.”8 For survivors of childhood cancer everywhere, this begins at the end of treatment with a formal plan for survivorship surveillance in alignment with the patient’s disease and treatment and a transition to adult care with a professional who is informed about the risks and prevention strategies for long-term childhood cancer survivors. Pediatric oncology nurses across LMIC are well poised to lead initial foundational survivorship programs in collaboration with local NGOs, multidisciplinary colleagues in cancer centers (including local adult healthcare professionals to sustain follow-up care), and international partners, thus emulating the inaugural efforts of pioneer Hobbie and subsequent nurse leaders in childhood cancer survivorship 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Care Research OnlineSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207