MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415280778 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v17n6p32

Psychosocial Effects of the Online CLIMB® Program on Children of Parents with Cancer

2025· article· W4415280778 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Asami Shibata, Yuko Akagawa, Kaori Osawa, Ryo Hayase, Sue P. Heiney

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialFeelingCoping (psychology)Psychosocial supportPsychological resilienceEmotional support

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the psychological impact of the online version of the psychosocial support program CLIMB® for school-age children (7–12 years) whose parents were diagnosed with cancer. CLIMB® (Children’s Lives Include Moments of Bravery) is typically conducted in person and is designed to enhance children’s coping skills for stress related to parental illness and to foster emotional resilience. Due to the impact of COVID-19, the program was implemented online in this study. Both parents and children reported a level of satisfaction comparable to that of the in-person format. Following participation, children demonstrated improved resilience and reported feeling reassured through learning about their parent’s illness and connecting with peers in similar situations. Parents observed that their children had gained a better understanding of the illness, showed emotional growth, and that their own concerns about their children were alleviated. These findings suggest that CLIMB® can serve as an effective support method even when delivered online, highlighting its potential value in supporting cancer patients with children and their families.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207