Factors Associated With Self‐Report Symptom Screening Adherence in Pediatric Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Objective was to describe the association between baseline characteristics and the number of Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi) assessments completed over an 8-week period. METHODS: This was a sub-analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial among 10 sites that were randomized to the intervention group. Participants were English- or Spanish-speaking pediatric patients 8-18 years of age newly diagnosed with cancer. Participants were prompted to complete SSPedi three times weekly for 8 weeks. The outcome was the number of SSPedi assessments completed during the 8-week period. Factors associated with the number of assessments were determined using mixed effects Poisson regression. RESULTS: At the 10 intervention sites, 216 patients were included in the analysis. Among these participants, 129 (59.7%) were male, 112 (51.9%) were white, and 83 (38.4%) were Hispanic. The number of SSPedi assessments was significantly higher for participants 11-14 years (rate ratio (RR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.25) and 15-18 years (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04-1.27) compared to 8-10 years. Participants completed more SSPedi assessments if they were Asian compared to white (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10-1.46), non-Hispanic compared to Hispanic (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04-1.28) and from families with a household income ≥$60,000 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03-1.21). Participants completed fewer SSPedi assessments if they had solid tumors compared to leukemia (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.99). CONCLUSION: Adherence to three-times weekly SSPedi varied by age, race, ethnicity, cancer diagnosis, and family income. This information may facilitate interventions to support routine symptom screening in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04614662.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".