Enhancing Circle‐of‐Care Communication in Pediatric Cancer Through Digital Health Technologies: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective communication in pediatric cancer care is crucial for informed decision-making among patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. This scoping review assesses evidence on digital tools designed to enhance circle-of-care communication for pediatric cancer patients and families. Eligible studies (2014-2024) evaluated digital health tools in pediatric cancer care (with functions that targeted information exchange among patients, caregivers, or clinicians); searched via MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE; and were in English. Twenty-eight studies were included, focusing on symptom tracking (n = 10), quality-of-life (QOL) monitoring (n = 5), and health information sharing (n = 8). Real-time symptom-tracking tools, such as SyMon-SAYS and RESPONSE, facilitated timely interventions by healthcare providers through automated alerts. QOL tools, like RetinoQuest and KLIK PROM, enabled healthcare providers to integrate patient-reported outcomes into care plans. However, patient- and caregiver-driven interventions, such as Sisom and Pain Buddy, faced challenges with adherence and accuracy of data entry. Information-sharing platforms (MyChart, Passport for Care) centralized data, improving transitions to adult care, but limited electronic health record integration constrained deployment. Digital tools have transformative potential for communication in pediatric cancer care but face barriers related to adherence, data accuracy, and scalability. Future innovations should prioritize real-time, multidisciplinary collaboration, seamless electronic health record integration, and user-centered design.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".