Implementing health promotion interventions in a pediatric oncology setting: A qualitative study among families impacted by cancer and healthcare professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One way to prevent or minimize adverse effects from pediatric cancer is to adopt and maintain healthy behaviours. However, there is limited knowledge on how to successfully implement health promotion (HP) interventions in clinical settings. This study aimed to determine the factors affecting the participation in and implementation of an HP program from the perspective of adolescents impacted by cancer, parents of children or adolescents impacted by cancer, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). We conducted semi-structured interviews with adolescents and parents, and focus groups with HCPs. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. A total of five adolescents, nine parents, and eleven HCPs were interviewed. Three major themes were determined: (1) facilitators to participation and implementation, (2) barriers to participation and implementation, and (3) suggestions for improvement. Factors identified as keys to participation include tailoring interventions to families' specific needs and social support. Organizational barriers, health issues, and a lack of interest or need hampered participation in the program. Implementation was positively impacted by the interventions' perceived relevance and negatively by their lack of integration in clinical care. While HP interventions hold promise for improving quality of life, successful implementation requires addressing the multifaceted challenges faced by participants and providers.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".